Levin Does Not Hold Back on ‘Liar’ and ‘Narcissist’ Jeff Flake

LevinTV host Mark Levin began his Monday evening radio show by looking at whether the claims against Judge Brett Kavanaugh are credible.

He offered praise to Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona prosecutor who was hired by Republicans to interview Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh.

“Dr. Ford is not credible in the least when it comes to Brett Kavanaugh. Zero! Zero! Zero!” Levin continued. “Brett Kavanaugh … by every standard he’s an innocent man. And the disgusting media never disappoints. One slob after another.”

He tore into outgoing Sen. Jeff Flake for his constant capitulation.

“And this guy, Flake. See how he’s being celebrated now by the libs?” Levin asked. “This guy is a liar, he’s a narcissist, and I’m going to prove it to you later in the program. Stick with me.”


(For more from the author of “Levin Does Not Hold Back on ‘Liar’ and ‘Narcissist’ Jeff Flake” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Question Conservatives Should Ask After the Unifying Kavanaugh Moment

Friday was a surreal day for everyone who considers themselves conservative or Republican.

On the one hand, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance Kavanaugh in a shocking and unusual display of intrepidness from Republican members. On the other hand, at high noon, President Trump signed into law the worst budget and policy betrayal of any majority party against its voters in recent memory.

So where do things stand?

Putting the hard-core RINOs like Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins aside, have Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Chuck Grassley really learned their lesson of holding the line on principle and recognizing they can’t negotiate in good faith with opponents who will use their goodwill to cut their hearts out? Will they finally look across the aisle – not just in the context of Supreme Court nominees – and view the other side the way Democrats incorrigibly view them?

It has been observed that last Thursday’s crescendo of emotional testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, in conjunction with the culmination of the truly evil behavior from Democrats, was a galvanizing and unifying moment for the disparate and conflicting elements of the barely coherent Republican Party. But there is no evidence to support the assumption that Republicans have learned their lesson on any other issue in dealing with Democrats.

We must not trust and hope that Republicans will begin fighting for us; we must demand it and verify it. They hold the line, or try to, on SCOTUS nominees because of what’s at stake for them if they don’t, and no amount of angry rhetoric on the Kavanaugh situation indicates that they will change this mode of operation.

Put simply, Republicans need to hold the line on the Supreme Court because it is their cover for elections and for governance. They fight emphatically on nominees and even held open a seat under Obama because it covers up their capitulations on 99 percent of the other issues. Thus, they can’t afford to cave on the Supreme Court. Plus, by exalting the role of the court to that of the supreme body of government, they excuse themselves from actually promoting tough reforms and taking power back from the courts. They outsource governing to the unelected courts and promise to make the courts better simply by “appointing better judges.” It’s the perfect scam to keep their culture of capitulation intact while still forcing conservatives to remain on their plantation every other November.

Thus, their strong position on “appointing and confirming better judges” really comes from their bad view of the role of the courts and their preference for distracting conservatives from all their other failures and betrayals on spending, abortion, traditional values, health care, immigration, and free markets.

But on this one issue of SCOTUS justices, where mainstream leadership members want to hold the line, they can’t even move the ball past the goal line because of the three or four RINOs at the fringe of the conference who are now obstructing confirmation. Some might sympathize with the leadership types – McConnell, Cornyn, and Grassley – because they would have confirmed Kavanaugh already if not for the wayward RINOs. Perhaps we just need to “elect more Republicans.” But the reason we have these RINOs is because of the failed leadership.

Every time conservatives push to nominate candidates who actually support the party’s platform, McConnell and crew burn down our candidates with the same vigor the Left is employing against Kavanaugh. They are personally destroyed. We could easily gotten Joe Miller in Alaska last time instead of Lisa Murkowski, but the establishment has no standards.

It’s not like Republicans are attempting to improve their roster, either. They have all backed Mitt Romney, against all competition, to win a Senate seat in ruby-red Utah. Now, Mitt Romney, who will likely become the new John McCain, is extolling Democrat demands on Kavanaugh. We have him to look forward to as the light at the end of this election. Even Marco Rubio is wavering on the issue. It’s no surprise, given that he and Tim Scott have already teamed up to sink a solid Ninth Circuit nominee, which likely taught Democrats that using identity politics and sensationalism can pick the Republican lock on even on the sacred issue of judicial nominees. The number of potential RINOs on any given issue is infinite because the party has no core beliefs and no process through which to vet candidates like Democrats do. Democrats run a right ship. Even Democratic members who hail from solid red states stick with the party and are voting against Kavanaugh. They don’t have a “DINO” problem because their party exudes core convictions on a daily basis.

Which brings us to the post-Kavanagh dynamic. Have these Republicans learned anything? Will Lindsey Graham suddenly serve as a bulwark against Democrats immorality, motivated by the same power-hungry truculence, on other issues such as border security and health care?

During last Friday’s vote on Kavanaugh, John Cornyn, the number two ranking Republican, referred to Democrat members of the committee as “cruel, reckless, and having no sense of decency.” I think he genuinely meant what he said and was sincerely pained by their behavior. But now that he recognizes that these people have no sense of decency, why is it that they he and others sit down with them and either fully or partially agree with their plans for crime, immigration, health care, budget, or any other issue? Don’t they see that everything about Democrats is motivated by power and that they will be cruel, reckless, and lack decency in pursuit of all those policy goals, particularly when they are designed to cement their political power, as is evident on issues like health care and immigration?

What few people outside Washington realize is that 90 percent of the work in Congress is remarkably bipartisan – and all in one direction. That is not the direction of conservatism. There is no evidence that what is happening to Kavanaugh will serve as a watershed moment for these people to change the way they do business with Democrats. Indeed, they just passed a budget supported by every cruel, reckless, and indecent Democrat member of that committee, including Kamala Harris, Mazie Hirono, and Cory “Spartacus” Booker.

Conservatives would be making a grave mistake to trust an unverified change in the behavior of GOP leadership. We have a lot more work to do than simply “voting Republican” for five minutes behind a booth on a Tuesday every other November. (For more from the author of “The Question Conservatives Should Ask After the Unifying Kavanaugh Moment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Opinion: Pedophilia Isn’t the Main Problem With Catholic Priests, Homosexuality Is

The editorial board of the New York Times declared it had identified the source of “The Catholic Church’s Unholy Stain.” It names pedophilia and asks: “How have so many pedophiles been allowed into the priesthood?”

The question was purely rhetorical because the board had an answer ready. It cited the usual grounds: “the all-male priesthood and the celibacy imposed on Catholic priests; the elitism, careerism and clericalism of the church hierarchy; the lack of transparency or accountability among bishops.” Most damning is “the power a man of God has over a child.”

Every parent knows instinctively that sexual abuse of the young and vulnerable is an evil that cries out for punishment, swift and severe. Anything less mocks the harm done by abusive priests. Equally inadequate—and blameworthy—are expressions of sympathy for the abused that disguise the elephant in the rectory. The first responsibility is to call things by their right name. . .

To casual readers, duly angered, the Times’ charge sounds about right. More thoughtful ones, however, will hesitate over the word pedophilia. With few exceptions, sexual abuse by priests has been visited overwhelmingly upon pubescent boys, and young men, most often teenagers. This is pederasty, not pedophilia. And pederasty is endemic to gay culture. . .

Without intending to, the Times’ studied determination to ignore homosexual predation as the culprit parallels the Catholic Church’s dilemma. How is the hierarchy to work at “restoring trust, instituting accountability, and eradicating the cancer of sexual abuse” without acknowledging a subject inoculated from judgment by reigning opinion? (Read more from “Opinion: Pedophilia Isn’t the Main Problem With Catholic Priests, Homosexuality Is” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Can We All Agree Now That the Supreme Court Has Too Much Power?

Why are the Democrats fighting so hard to prevent the president from performing his constitutional function of nominating Supreme Court justices and the Senate from performing its function to advise and consent? Why the nuclear warfare over the weakest branch of government while both parties amicably agree about the power of the purse, which is manifestly more important and impactful?

It has become clear that every Supreme Court vacancy will trigger the type of thermonuclear fight we are seeing today. And for good reason. If we are going to crown the Supreme Court as God with the ability to immutably determine the outcome of every issue until the end of times, then you better believe there will be a no-holds-barred brawl over every nominee. But it’s only a fight because we’ve placed the outcome of the entire political war in the hands of “the Anthony Kennedy seat.”

The Founders would laugh at such a spectacle over a Supreme Court nominee. It’s not that they didn’t engage in mortal combat over politics. The presidential election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson took the cake. It’s just that they only envisioned such desperate politicking over offices that actually mattered to the character of the nation, such as the election of a president. The Supreme Court did not hold such offices.

Here is how much influence the Supreme Court had besides interpreting banal statutes, back when we followed the blueprint accepted by our nation in 1789.

Just as the nascent republic was getting off the ground in April 1789, James Wilson, one of the greatest Founders and perhaps the greatest legal mind of the generation, personally lobbied President Washington to be nominated as chief justice of the United States. It’s not that he thought this position would be on par or even greater than that of president. It’s that as the consummate legal nerd of his time, Wilson felt his calling in life was to adjudicate complex cases and controversies, not to be a politician. Unlike the other Founders of similar prominence, he is the only one never to have served in a political position after the government was established.

Interestingly, Washington passed over Wilson for the job and instead selected John Jay. Jay was a flashy diplomat, politician, and war hero but was clearly not a scholar like Wilson. Washington did selected Wilson as one of the original associate justices, and it was during his time on the court that he delivered his famed series of legal lectures, among the most scholarly legal works in American history.

During Jay’s six years on the court, he heard only four cases. He was mainly preoccupied with politics. He even served as acting secretary of state for the first six months of his tenure as chief justice. He left the court even before George Washington retired, eventually became governor of New York, and launched a failed bid for president. He was a politician at heart, and at the time, the last place for an ambitious politician was the Supreme Court. He hated the job of chief justice. Then, in 1801, President John Adams offered Jay the opportunity to return as chief justice. Jay responded in a way that nobody in Washington could relate to today, but is nonetheless very revealing as to the power of the federal courts during our founding generation:

Such was the temper of the times, that the Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States was in some respects more accommodated to certain prejudices and sensibilities, than to the great and obvious principles of sound policy. Expectations were nevertheless entertained that it would be amended as the public mind became more composed and better informed; but those expectations have not been realized, nor have we hitherto seen convincing indications of a disposition in Congress to realize them. On the contrary, the efforts repeatedly made to place the judicial department on a proper footing have proved fruitless.

I left the bench perfectly convinced that under a system so defective it would not obtain the energy, weight, and dignity which are essential to its affording due support to the national government, nor acquire the public confidence and respect which, as the last resort of the justice of the nation, it should possess.

Jay turned down a life-tenured job as chief justice because he felt the courts had no ability to shape politics, and as a politician, he found such a job unappealing. Also, remember that Congress controls the entire jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (except for a few cases), and Jay lamented that Congress barely gave it any power in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which wasn’t signed into law until after Jay had already accepted the position as chief justice.

To give you a sense of how unremarkable the high court was at the time, James Wilson himself, while sitting on the court, spent time in debtor’s prison because of bankruptcy. Talk about prestige!

The moral of the story? All the power over politics and the judiciary itself lies with Congress. So if we are going to tear each other apart and destroy people in the court of public opinion in pursuit of power, let’s at least confine this spectacle to congressional and presidential elections, where the consequences are directly determined by voters. Why outsource our political warfare to an unelected branch, when the entire purpose of not electing judges was to ensure that politics never seeped into the courts in the first place? (For more from the author of “Can We All Agree Now That the Supreme Court Has Too Much Power?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Empire of Lies: Are ‘We the People’ Useful Idiots in the Digital Age?

“Who needs direct repression,” asked philosopher Slavoj Zizek, “when one can convince the chicken to walk freely into the slaughterhouse?”

In an Orwellian age where war equals peace, surveillance equals safety, and tolerance equals intolerance of uncomfortable truths and politically incorrect ideas, “we the people” have gotten very good at walking freely into the slaughterhouse, all the while convincing ourselves that the prison walls enclosing us within the American police state are there for our protection.

Call it doublespeak, call it hypocrisy, call it delusion, call it whatever you like, but the fact remains that while we claim to value freedom, privacy, individuality, equality, diversity, accountability, and government transparency, our actions and those of our government rulers contradict these much-vaunted principles at every turn.

For instance, we claim to disdain the jaded mindset of the Washington elite, and yet we continue to re-elect politicians who lie, cheat and steal.

We claim to disapprove of the endless wars that drain our resources and spread thin our military, and yet we repeatedly buy into the idea that patriotism equals supporting the military.

We claim to chafe at taxpayer-funded pork barrel legislation for roads to nowhere, documentaries on food fights, and studies of mountain lions running on treadmills, and yet we pay our taxes meekly and without raising a fuss of any kind.

We claim to object to the militarization of our local police forces and their increasingly battlefield mindset, and yet we do little more than shrug our shoulders over SWAT team raids and police shootings of unarmed citizens.

And then there’s our supposed love-hate affair with technology, which sees us bristling at the government’s efforts to monitor our internet activities, listen in on our phone calls, read our emails, track our every movement, and punish us for what we say on social media, and yet we keep using these very same technologies all the while doing nothing about the government’s encroachments on our rights.

This contradiction is backed up by a Pew Research Center study, which finds that “Americans say they are deeply concerned about privacy on the web and their cellphones. They say they do not trust Internet companies or the government to protect it. Yet they keep using the services and handing over their personal information.”

Let me get this straight: the government continues to betray our trust, invade our privacy, and abuse our rights, and we keep going back for more?

Sure we do.

After all, the alternative—taking a stand, raising a ruckus, demanding change, refusing to cooperate, engaging in civil disobedience—is not only a lot of work but can be downright dangerous.

What we fail to realize, however, is that by tacitly allowing these violations to continue, we not only empower the tyrant but we feed the monster.

In this way, what starts off as small, occasional encroachments on our rights, justified in the name of greater safety, becomes routine, wide-ranging abuses so entrenched as to make reform all but impossible.

We saw this happen with the police and their build-up of military arsenal, ostensibly to fight the war on drugs. The result: a transformation of America’s law enforcement agencies into extensions of the military, populated with battle-hardened soldiers who view “we the people” as enemy combatants.

The same thing happened with the government’s so-called efforts to get tough on crime by passing endless laws outlawing all manner of activities. The result: an explosion of laws criminalizing everything from parenting decisions and fishing to gardening and living off the grid.

And then there were the private prisons, marketed as a way to lower the government’s cost of locking up criminals. Only it turns out that private prisons actually cost the taxpayer more money and place profit incentives on jailing more Americans, resulting in the largest prison population in the world.

Are you starting to notice a pattern yet?

The government lures us in with a scheme to make our lives better, our families safer, and our communities more secure, and then once we buy into it, they slam the trap closed.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about red light cameras, DNA databases, surveillance cameras, or zero tolerance policies: they all result in “we the people” being turned into Enemy Number One.

In this way, the government campaign to spy on our phone calls, letters and emails was sold to the American people as a necessary tool in the war on terror.

Instead of targeting terrorists, however, the government has turned usinto potential terrorists, so that if we dare say the wrong thing in a phone call, letter, email or on the internet, especially social media, we end up investigated, charged and possibly jailed.

If you happen to be one of the 1.31 billion individuals who use Facebook or one of the 255 million who tweet their personal and political views on Twitter, you might want to pay close attention.

This criminalization of free speech, which is exactly what the government’s prosecution of those who say the “wrong” thing using an electronic medium amounts to, was at the heart of Elonis v. United States, a case that wrestled with where the government can draw the line when it comes to expressive speech that is protected and permissible versus speech that could be interpreted as connoting a criminal intent.

The case arose after Anthony Elonis, an aspiring rap artist, used personal material from his life as source material and inspiration for rap lyrics which he then shared on Facebook.

For instance, shortly after Elonis’ wife left him and he was fired from his job, his lyrics included references to killing his ex-wife, shooting a classroom of kindergarten children, and blowing up an FBI agent who had opened an investigation into his postings.

Despite the fact that Elonis routinely accompanied his Facebook posts with disclaimers that his lyrics were fictitious, and that he was using such writings as an outlet for his frustrations, he was charged with making unlawful threats (although it was never proven that he intended to threaten anyone) and sentenced to 44 months in jail.

Elonis is not the only Facebook user to be targeted for prosecution based on the content of his posts.

In a similar case that made its way through the courts only to be rebuffed by the Supreme Court, Brandon Raub, a decorated Marine, was arrested by a swarm of FBI, Secret Service agents and local police and forcibly detained in a psychiatric ward because of controversial song lyrics and political views posted on his Facebook page. He was eventually released after a circuit court judge dismissed the charges against him as unfounded.

Rapper Jamal Knox and Rashee Beasley were sentenced to jail terms of up to six years for a YouTube video calling on listeners to “kill these cops ‘cause they don’t do us no good.” Although the rapper contended that he had no intention of bringing harm to the police, he was convicted of making terroristic threats and intimidation of witnesses.

And then there was Franklin Delano Jeffries II, an Iraq war veteran, who, in the midst of a contentious custody battle for his daughter,shared a music video on YouTube and Facebook in which he sings about the judge in his case, “Take my child and I’ll take your life.” Despite his insistence that the lyrics were just a way for him to vent his frustrations with the legal battle, Jeffries was convicted of communicating threats and sentenced to 18 months in jail.

The common thread running through all of these cases is the use of social media to voice frustration, grievances, and anger, sometimes using language that is overtly violent.

The question the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide in Elonis is whether this activity, in the absence of any overt intention of committing a crime, rises to the level of a “true threat” or whether it is, as I would contend, protected First Amendment activity. (The Supreme Court has defined a “true threat” as “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”)

In an 8-1 decision that concerned itself more with “criminal-law principles concerning intent rather than the First Amendment’s protection of free speech,” the Court ruled that prosecutors had not proven that Elonis intended to harm anyone beyond the words he used and context.

That was three years ago.

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Elonis, Corporate America has now taken the lead in policing expressive activity online, with social media giants such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube using their formidable dominance in the field to censor, penalize and regulate speech and behavior online by suspending and/or banning users whose content violated the companies’ so-called community standards for obscenity, violence, hate speech, discrimination, etc.

Make no mistake: this is fascism.

This is fascism with a smile.

As Bertram Gross, former presidential advisor, noted in his chilling book Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America, “Anyone looking for black shirts, mass parties, or men on horseback will miss the telltale clues of creeping fascism. . . . In America, it would be super modern and multi-ethnic—as American as Madison Avenue, executive luncheons, credit cards, and apple pie. It would be fascism with a smile. As a warning against its cosmetic façade, subtle manipulation, and velvet gloves, I call it friendly fascism. What scares me most is its subtle appeal.”

The subtle appeal of this particular brand of fascism is its self-righteous claim to fighting the evils of our day (intolerance, hatred, violence) using the weapons of Corporate America.

Be warned, however: it is only a matter of time before these weapons are used more broadly, taking aim at anything that stands in its quest for greater profit, control and power.

This is what fascism looks like in a modern context, with corporations flexing their muscles to censor and silence expressive activity under the pretext that it is taking place within a private environment subject to corporate rules as opposed to activity that takes place within a public or government forum that might be subject to the First Amendment’s protection of “controversial” and/or politically incorrect speech.

Alex Jones was just the beginning.

Jones, the majordomo of conspiracy theorists who spawned an empire built on alternative news, was banned from Facebook for posting content that violates the social media site’s “Community Standards,”which prohibit posts that can be construed as bullying or hateful.

According to The Washington Post, Twitter suspended over 70 million accounts over the course of two months to “reduce the flow of misinformation on the platform.” Among those temporarily suspended was Daniel McAdams, Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute.

Rightly contending that tech companies are just extensions of the government, former Texas congressman Ron Paul believes that social media networks under the control of Google, Apple, Twitter and Facebook are working with the U.S. government to silence dissent. “You get accused of treasonous activity and treasonous speech because in an empire of lies the truth is treason,” Paul declared. “Challenging the status quo is what they can’t stand and it unnerves them, so they have to silence people.”

Curiously enough, you know who has yet to be suspended? President Trump.

Twitter’s rationale for not suspending world leaders such as Trump, whom critics claim routinely violate the social media giant’s rules, is because “Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets, would hide important information people should be able to see and debate. It would also not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.”

Frankly, all individuals, whether or not they are world leaders, should be entitled to have their thoughts and ideas aired openly, pitted against those who might disagree with them, and debated widely, especially in a forum like the internet.

Why does this matter?

The internet and social media have taken the place of the historic public square, which has slowly been crowded out by shopping malls and parking lots.

As such, these cyber “public squares” may be the only forum left for citizens to freely speak their minds and exercise their First Amendment rights, especially in the wake of legislation that limits access to our elected representatives.

Unfortunately, the internet has become a tool for the government—and its corporate partners—to monitor, control and punish the populace for behavior and speech that may be controversial but are far from criminal.

Indeed, the government, a master in the art of violence, intrusion, surveillance and criminalizing harmless activities, has repeatedly attempted to clamp down on First Amendment activity on the web and in social media under the various guises of fighting terrorism, discouraging cyberbullying, and combatting violence.

Police and prosecutors have also targeted “anonymous” postings and messages on forums and websites, arguing that such anonymity encourages everything from cyber-bullying to terrorism, and have attempted to prosecute those who use anonymity for commercial or personal purposes.

We would do well to tread cautiously in how much authority we give the Corporate Police State to criminalize free speech activities and chill what has become a vital free speech forum.

Not only are social media and the Internet critical forums for individuals to freely share information and express their ideas, but they also serve as release valves to those who may be angry, seething, alienated or otherwise discontented.

Without an outlet for their pent-up anger and frustration, these thoughts and emotions fester in secret, which is where most violent acts are born.

In the same way, free speech in the public square—whether it’s the internet, the plaza in front of the U.S. Supreme Court or a college campus—brings people together to express their grievances and challenge oppressive government regimes.

Without it, democracy becomes stagnant and atrophied.

Likewise, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, if free speech is not vigilantly protected, democracy is more likely to drift toward fear, repression, and violence. In such a scenario, we will find ourselves threatened with an even more pernicious injury than violence itself: the loss of liberty.

More speech, not less, is the remedy.


Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available online at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at [email protected] Click here to read more of John Whitehead’s commentaries.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Hit Job on Brett Kavanaugh: You Can’t Make This Stuff up

I had intended to write, this week, about an egregiously stupid and poorly written Nevada law which was signed twice by a governor who used to be a wannabe federal judge.

But allegations about a real federal judge — as opposed to a former wannabe — became public as a Democrat hit job over the weekend, and what I originally intended will have to wait until next week.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh went through four days of intense hearings where the Democratic Party threw everything at him — from pop-up astroturf demonstrators in the hearing room to questions no Supreme Court nominee should have to listen to much less answer — and a vote was scheduled for Thursday.

That was derailed when a clearly unhinged Sen. Dianne Feinstein sent a letter she had been sitting on for at least three months from a woman who wanted to remain anonymous saying that Kavanaugh had attempted to rape her 36 years ago at a high school party.

She didn’t report it at the time.


I was in Tulsa when Anita Hill — who used to teach at Oral Roberts University — made ridicules charges against Justice Clarence Thomas at his confirmation hearings.

She was a lightweight then and is a self-professed victim today. (Remember her allegation that now Justice Thomas asked her, “Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?”)

At least her allegations were only 10 years old.

Christine Blasey Ford waited 36 years to write an anonymous letter to a member of the House who forwarded the letter three months ago to Sen. Feinstein, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. She’s a psychology professor at Palo Alto University who “discovered” the “repressed memories” in couples therapy, allegedly 30 years after the high school incident she “recalled.”

It’s not even a good episode of “Law & Order.” Where are Sam Waterston and Fred Dalton Thompson when you need them?

And the reaction of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee is also nuts.

They postponed the vote so Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, could testify next week — if she wanted. Turns out, her showboat lawyer is demanding an FBI investigation before she’ll testify. If Republicans have any spine at all, that won’t happen.

Judge Kavanaugh wants to testify to clear his name.

The president wants him to as well — and let’s stop kidding each other — that is the real reason the Democratic Party is so unhinged. Kavanaugh isn’t the target. Trump is the target.

Keep in mind that Kavanaugh has been through six — yes six — FBI background checks in his career. Not a whiff of any impropriety came up. The Democrats were so desperate that they pointed out that Kavanaugh spent a lot of money on Washington Nationals baseball tickets. That’s only a lapse of judgment if you are a Mets fan.

It’s not like he’s Harvey Weinstein or Les Moonves with a judicial casting couch.

He’s a family man with two young daughters and he’s being accused by a woman of something which allegedly happened 36 years ago. Her details are vague and inconsistent. And she is a Democrat activist. Further, her parents lost a foreclosure suit in which Judge Kavanaugh’s mother was the presiding judge.

This is an obscene abuse of the process from a party which specializes in the abuse of any process the opposition party is in favor of.

This is the exact reason the American people made Donald Trump President. And the longer it goes on, the deeper the Democratic Party is digging its grave. (For more from the author of “The Hit Job on Brett Kavanaugh: You Can’t Make This Stuff up” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Conservatives Want to Know About the Left: What the Heck Do These People Want?

When I was a young man I worked as a waiter for a time. Certain customers would occasionally come into the restaurant who were a waiter’s worst nightmare.

These were people who had problems with everything from the moment they walked into the restaurant. Nothing pleased them — the table placement, the flatware, the waiter, the food, the wait for the food, the music being too loud or not loud enough or the wrong music. You name it — whatever it was, it was not what they wanted.

After I would take their meals back to the chef several times, he would finally erupt and throw whatever he happened to be holding in his hand at the time.

His booming voice would echo throughout the cavernous restaurant kitchen.

“What the hell do these people want?!!”

Many of us find ourselves asking the same question about the political left.

What the hell do these people want?

Do they even know what they want?

OK, we get it — they hate Trump and want him gone. Yes, we know. We have heard this so often we don’t even hear it anymore. It’s become like background music in an elevator.

But besides getting rid of Trump, what else do they want? Or is that it? Just get rid of Trump and all will be well.

That is apparently the case, but can a political party win an election on a platform of simply getting rid of an administration without explaining how that would improve the lives of the American people?

As things stand right now the lives of the American people are pretty good — much better than they were before Trump was elected.

What is the left offering in place of the what we have right now?

This is what we have right now:

A booming and growing economy, low taxes, low inflation, a strong dollar, a strong military, fewer governmental impediments to business success, a sense of nationalism and hope for the future, record low unemployment, highest employment levels ever for blacks and Hispanics, a greatly improved trade agreement with Mexico and the European Union, a substantial reduction of illegal immigration, a great improvement in relations with North Korea, Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a conservative majority on the Supreme Court with another appointment coming, American money returning to America, a boom in new industries, factories being built, 4 percent GDP, abolishment of gender-neutral restrooms, a restart of the American space program, great pride in America, a clean-up of the Deep State, withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement, withdrawal from NAFTA, record-high value in the stock market, rapidly improving 401K’s, greatly improved border protection, withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, a president who works incessantly, a president who does as he says.

The results from the left taking over would be:

Socialism, government-controlled health system, elimination of immigration enforcement, open borders, citizenship for illegal aliens, reversal of the tax cuts, impeachment of President Trump, destruction of the coal industry, reinstitution of business-killing regulations, high taxes, high, unemployment, depleted 401K’s, low wages, dropping stock market, a struggling economy, increasing numbers on welfare, depleted military, increased social spending, losing respect in the world, end of North Korean peace talks, growing power of China, return to the old NAFTA agreement, return to Kyoto Treaty, return to carbon taxes, cessation of factory building, decimated auto industry, reestablishment of the Washington swamp culture, return to “Speak loud but carry a feather duster” diplomacy, rebirth of ISIS, reentering Iran nuclear deal, attacking Israel, greatly increased business and personal bankruptcies, a flat GDP.

Looking at what we have and what we would get from the left, no sane, logical person would ever choose the left. Yet millions of American voters will do just that.

Are these people insane and illogical?

Some think they are.

Michael Savage wrote a book titled, “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.” This best-seller argued just that. He points out that liberals are intentionally trying to undermine the pillars of society that keep it stable and sane.

This includes marriage, established gender identification, the Ten Commandments, free speech, religion, parental authority, manners, respect, patriotism, and much more.

In 2012, The American Journal of Political Science did a study of the beliefs and actions of conservatives and liberals. They used Eysenck’s Psychoticism scale to measure each group’s tendencies toward psychoticism.

Under this scale, those suffering from psychoticism demonstrate the following traits: tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking authoritarianism, and impulsivity.

If you think about what the left does, says, and believes, it is easy to see why liberals ranked so high on the psychoticism scale and conservatives ranked so low.

If someone disagrees with leftists, rather than debating their differences of opinion, leftists’ first reaction is often violence — just look at antifa.

Liberals don’t hesitate to undertake policies that put society at risk — gender neural restrooms and encouraging teenagers to experiment with risky sexual practices.

Liberals engage in outrageous behavior to get attention — vagina hats and gay pride parades.

They seek to control all aspects of a person’s life — limits on the size of soda bottles to bans on plastic straws.

They do and say things that are highly inappropriate for the setting — turning John McCain’s and Aretha Franklin’s funerals into anti-Trump rallies.

Perhaps instead of asking, “What the hell do these people want?” we should be asking, “Who the hell are these people?” It would give us a much better answer.

The political left is a collection of people who will do things on impulse without considering the risks or the damage their behavior will cause to others.

Conservatives sometimes try to talk to those on the left, hoping to use logic, facts, and reasoning to persuade them to adopt a better way of thinking about something.

Those who have tried soon give up and declare it a lost cause.

Conservatives must realize they are, themselves, engaging in insane behavior by continuing to do the same thing to the same people and expecting a different result.

It is much better to leave the insanity to the left. (For more from the author of “What Conservatives Want to Know About the Left: What the Heck Do These People Want?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s Why Lowering the Refugee Cap Won’t Make a Difference to Our Immigration Crisis

What if I told you that the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) is completing the criminal conspiracy of Central American families to traffic their own teenage kids into this country and unite them with other illegal alien family members? What if I told you many of them have gone on to become gang members and fuel the drug crisis in the country? Now, what if I told you that the Senate voted this week on a bill to fully fund this agency without addressing the policy problem?

Last week, in a document submitted to a court babysitting our border “security,” government lawyers reported that as many as 350 illegal alien minors had parents who either affirmatively declined to be reunited with them or left the country without giving the government notice, as reported by Breitbart. This means that rather than two separate categories crossing the border – family units and unaccompanied alien children (UACs), they are usually the same demographic. All things equal, illegals would like to exploit our border to bring everyone in, but they don’t hesitate to either send their kids here alone or come with them and then leave them here to be resettled with other illegal relatives.

Shockingly, in the budget bill before Congress this week, legislators inserted a provision demanding that the government come up with a strategy to reunite illegal alien families rather than come up with a strategy to end their fleecing of America and endangerment of their own families. As I’ve noted before, almost none of these families are eligible for asylum, and almost none of the unaccompanied alien children are eligible for refugee resettlement status because most of them are self-trafficked by their own families, are not in the country alone, and are actually reunited with other illegal relatives – all of whom should be deported. Yet Congress is fully funding the Office of Refugee Resettlement in this “minibus” bill, even though Trump has cut the number of refugees from abroad.

There is no need for a separate refugee program in this era

Earlier this week, there was a lot of anxiety in the open-borders lobby after the Trump administration announced, pursuant to the annual determination of refugee caps, that it would accept no more than 30,000 refugees this year, down from a 45,000 cap last year. While the number is lower than it has been in recent years, let’s not forget that the entire program is nothing but a handout to private contractors and makes no sense either from an American standpoint or from a humanitarian standpoint.

Most of the refugees are from countries that are very different than America, and the people would do better resettling closer to their homes. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that we could resettle 12 times as many people closer to home with the amount of money we spend to bring them here, line the pockets of the contractors, and create Democrat voters. Moreover, as Mark Krikorian observed, the U.N. only considered 5,634 refugee applicants to be “emergency” or “urgent” for all of 2017. Our cap should be no higher than that.

But there is a broader point to be made. Open-borders advocates want to double-dip with refugee policies because they fail to acknowledge that we have so many other categories of immigration that are similar to refugees. In fact, most of our immigration system is built on chain migration, not skills, whereby existing immigrants, many of whom initially came here through refugee or similar programs, then bring in family members.

There are also thousands of “Special Immigrant Visas” who are brought in from Iraq and Afghanistan every year, many of whom present security risks. They are refugees in all but name only, but aren’t counted against the annual cap set by the president. We also bring in victims of crime under U visas and give de facto refugee treatment to paroled Cubans and Haitians and adjustment of status for Nicaraguans. Then there are the 50,000 brought in under the diversity lottery every year.

The Central American “asylum” invasion is worse than refugee policy

Which brings us back to the bogus asylum invasion at our border. Why should we take in any refugees from what has become Europe’s problem when we have our own “refugee” program for Central Americans flooding our border? And in the case of bogus asylum, it’s worse than refugees, because we don’t bring them in via a controlled process; they come here chaotically and unilaterally. According to the U.N. Refugee Agency, individual asylum applications in the US rose by 27 percent in 2017, topping out at 331,700 new requests, which eclipses Germany’s 198,300. Those numbers are higher this year. More than 400,000 received work permits last year, which means they disappear into our population, even though almost none of them would qualify for asylum if placed before a judge immediately.

Hence, we already take in more refugees than anyone else.

As much as I disagree with the refugee program, I’d take a standard cap of 70,000 vetted refugees any day over the several hundred thousand young males from Central America and other family units coming here against our will and demanding asylum.

So why is Congress funding the ORR at record levels? Legislators are appropriating $1.9 billion (58 percent above the president’s request) with a 30,000-refugee cap, when in 2016 they appropriated $1.6 billion for 85,000. The answer is that instead of bringing in refugees through the traditional route, they are treating all the Central American teenagers like refugees. And those are not counted towards the annual cap. In addition, the minibus bill has a rider demanding that any member of Congress must be let into the detention facilities to interfere with the work of our border agents and intimidate them.

Appallingly, the Senate just voted this week for an $8.4 billion “opioid package” interfering in health care and prescriptions, when the entire problem is illicit drugs being brought in through the very asylum/UAC surge Congress now encourages rather than deters in this budget bill.

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.

Yet a GOP Congress and administration are allowing all of this to continue unabated while claiming magnanimously to fight “the opioid crisis” and care about “uniting families.” Good night, Orwell. (For more from the author of “Here’s Why Lowering the Refugee Cap Won’t Make a Difference to Our Immigration Crisis” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Walsh: People Are Mad That I Called Chelsea Clinton a Satanist. I’d Like to Issue No Apology.

Last week, rabid pro-abortion advocate Chelsea Clinton claimed that it would be “unchristian” to protect babies from being killed. Here’s her exact quote, referring to the possibility of overturning Roe: “That’s unconscionable to me, and also, I’m sure that this will unleash another wave of hate in my direction, but as a deeply religious person, it’s also unchristian to me.”

On Twitter the next day, I said that it makes sense for her to support child murder as a “religious person” because her religion is satanism. She responded, twice, insisting that she’s a “Methodist” who feels that banning abortion would be “awful” and “anathema to her as a person and a Christian.”

Now that I’ve had some time to reflect upon my harsh and insulting words about this woman, I would like to officially not apologize for them. I sincerely believe she is a satanist and my only regret is that I didn’t also call her a heretic. “Satanic heretic” would have been a more apt description. And she is far from the only satanic heretic in our culture.

Pro-abortion “Christians” are heretics because they claim a God who endorses violence against children. Well, I suppose that’s blasphemy as well as heresy. Perhaps “blasphemous satanic heretic” is the technically correct term, but after a while it just gets redundant. The point is that Jesus Christ is the Lord of Life. He gives life to our children and commands us to care for the precious gift He has bestowed. It is the most twisted kind of heresy to suggest that God may breathe life into your child and then raise no objection if you crush the child’s skull and throw his body in a medical waste dumpster. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,” says the Book of Jeremiah. “Children are a gift from the Lord,” says Psalm 127.

Pro-abortion “Christians” like to say that the Bible doesn’t specifically prohibit abortion. Yes, it does: “Thou shalt not murder” is clear enough. Must Scripture go into specifics about every possible form of murder? There’s nothing in the Ten Commandments specifically saying that I can’t beat my neighbor to death with a shovel. But I think that scenario fits under the “don’t murder” umbrella, as does the direct killing of humans in the womb. (Read more from “Walsh: People Are Mad That I Called Chelsea Clinton a Satanist. I’d Like to Issue No Apology.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

We Need to Know If Intelligence Agencies Covered up the 1996 Crash of TWA 800

While recently watching a documentary on the Smithsonian Channel about a 1987 plane crash in California purportedly caused by a deranged passenger, I realized a profound shift had occurred in my accepted wisdom, my “worldview.” During its investigation of the crash, the FBI allegedly found a vital piece of evidence at the scene, which led to them identifying a suspect behind the crash.

It dawned on me that I doubted the veracity of both the evidence the FBI supposedly found and of the documentary itself. Then I realized that my doubt was purely a result of everything we’ve learned about the FBI’s involvement in the greatest political crime in America’s history through its pivotal role to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, and in the blatant cover-up of Hillary Clinton’s crimes as secretary of state. It also brought home why President Trump needs to reopen the 1996 TWA Flight 800 plane crash investigation. . .

The FBI’s willingness to participate in such outrageous cover-ups and falsely predicated investigations, and ignore a mountain of evidence contradicting the official government line, should prompt President Trump to revisit what I believe is one of the other great cover-ups in American history, also involving the Clintons: the destruction of TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996.

It was destroyed off the coast of Long Island shortly after taking off from John F. Kennedy International Airport bound for Paris, taking 230 souls with it. That scandal presaged what we saw 20 years later with the whitewash of the Hillary email server case and the counterintelligence operation against Trump’s campaign.

The seminal work about TWA 800 was written by a meticulous, indefatigable investigative reporter and documentarian, Jack Cashill. (Full disclosure: I have gotten to know and work with Jack, a fellow graduate of Regis High School in Manhattan, over the years, and consider him a friend.) (Read more from “We Need to Know If Intelligence Agencies Covered up the 1996 Crash of TWA 800” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.