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

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

The regime is flat broke

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

Manipulating South Korea and the United States

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

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

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

Change of heart?

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

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

Buying time

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

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

Madman theory worked?

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

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

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

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

Now what?

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

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

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

HOLOCAUST REDUX: How We Can Be Conditioned to Murder

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

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

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

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

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

The question is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A trailer for this show is seen below.

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

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Trump Is So Hated by Leftists

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


He fights!


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This May Be the Dumbest Idea House Republicans Have Ever Had

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republicans aren’t keeping their promises to voters.

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

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

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

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

In America, Mass Murder Academy Is Always in Session

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

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

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

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

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

South Korea and Australia banned the Mortal Kombat game altogether.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congress Can END the Tyranny of the Courts TOMORROW

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patchak v. Zinke

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

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

Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas observed:

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

And more specifically to this case:

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

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

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

Jennings v. Rodriguez

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Oprah Is Worse Than Obama

. . .Liberals buzzed about Oprah Winfrey possibly running for president in 2020 after she gave a phony, preacher-style speech at the Golden Globe Awards. She congratulated Hollywood women for accusing men of sexual harassment in the latest trend called “Me Too” or “Time’s Up” – a movement to destroy all men and get rid of due process.

At first, Oprah said she doesn’t have it in her “DNA” to run for president. But with so many people saying they’d support her, she’s thinking about it. She said that she would need to hear from “God” very clearly in order to run . . .

If you want to know what liberal black women do when in charge, just look at any ghetto in America, where black women run the homes. The children are out of control. The men are weak. Gangs, drugs and violence rule the areas. Black women vote for liberal Democrats – at a rate of 98 percent in Alabama’s recent election – and evil people worship them for doing so . . .

Oprah props up transgenders and homosexuals as “enlightened” people living “authentically,” such as Janet Mock, a black man who thinks he’s a woman. Barack Obama pushed transgenders in the military, put them in the wrong bathrooms and locker rooms, gave “sex-change” treatment to criminals, and let Chelsea Manning out of prison early. He made wrong people feel right (as Oprah called it, living “your truth”), but he attacked decent people as wrong.

Obama declared in a speech that illegal aliens wouldn’t receive socialized health care. Rep. Joe Wilson shouted, “You lie!” Wilson was right; despite lip-service wording in the Affordable Care Act, hundreds of millions of dollars went to give Obamacare to illegals. But Oprah accused Wilson of showing “disrespect” because Obama is “African-American.” What an evil lie! (Read more from “Why Oprah Is Worse Than Obama” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A Guaranteed Remedy to Reduce Gun Violence at Schools

Forgive my forwardness, but I know what could radically reduce gun violence on U.S. school campuses without adding more gun regulations, placing more restrictions on the mentally ill, outlawing guns or even involving Washington, D.C. And I bet it could be enacted sooner than any other proposed remedy . . .

We as a country need to do what Israel did: The Holy Land mandated armed guards at the entrances to all schools in 1995, and those guards are backed by local law enforcement and special police forces. While these school defenses are primarily intended to thwart terrorists, they also deter any would-be criminals who would cause harm to children.

Israeli schools have only suffered from two shootings in the past 40 years: one in 1974 (22 children and three adults) and another in 2008 (eight youth).

True, Israel has fewer guns per capita than the U.S., but it’s also a tiny country with virtually no opportunity for hunting or other recreational use of firearms. Anti-gun advocates love to point out that there are only about 500,000 weapons that are privately owned in Israel, but that’s in a country (area) that is only about one-fifteenth the size of California or one-twenty-fifth the size of Texas.

Twenty-eight years ago, in 1990, then-Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., introduced the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 into the Senate, and it prohibited “any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a loaded or unsecured firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” It was passed by Congress and signed by President H.W. Bush. (Read more from “A Guaranteed Remedy to Reduce Gun Violence at Schools” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here Is an Invitation for You to Help Make History in a Very Real Sense

In December, the North Carolina State Senate and State Assembly passed a law that reduced the number of required signatures to gain ballot access in that state from nearly 95,000 valid signatures of registered voters (a near impossible task) down to 12,000. The thinking behind the law was to enable the Green Party to gain ballot access and thereby enable the Republicans to regain control of the governorship. The law was vetoed by the Democratic Governor but then overridden by a very slim margin by both Republican-controlled legislative bodies.

This unexpected move presented the Constitution Party with a rare opportunity. Almost overnight the North Carolina Constitution Party began organizing to take advantage of this law change to gain ballot access. They have been working gun show after gun show and other venues to gain the needed signatures to achieve ballot access. As of this writing, they have gathered nearly 2,500 signatures, over 80% of which have been gathered by volunteers. The signatures need to be validated by the counties and then turned in to the North Carolina Secretary of State. Thus far, they have achieved an 83% validation rate, which is remarkable. The Constitution Party has never succeeded in getting on the ballot in that state before, so success this year will be a historic first for the party.

Gaining ballot access this year will enable the party to run candidates for office this year and will also secure ballot position for the next Presidential Election in 2020. That will serve as an insurance policy to secure spots on the November ballot in the event that the GOP Establishment regains total control of their party. This is where you can play a critical and vital role. If you live in North Carolina. you can contact the state party leadership to volunteer both your time, talent, and yes, your financial support to ensure that ballot position is gained. Simply go to the National Constitution Party website at www.constitutionparty.com. You can reach both the national party and the state party via that website. When making a donation, select the “Ballot Access” or “General Donation” buttons.

The party has until May 31st to gather the required number of signatures and get them turned in to the North Carolina Secretary of State. The looming deadline has made it necessary for the party to hire a professional petitioner. This costs the party $2.00 per signature plus boarding and per diem allowance. Please consider donating what you are able. A $5.00, $10.00, $25.00, $50.00, $100.00 or more donation will be deeply appreciated. Small donations are as critical as are larger ones. Achieving ballot access in North Carolina will be a historic accomplishment for the party. In March, we succeeded in getting enough signatures to qualify for ballot position in Hawaii. After North Carolina, we have other states that are within our reach.

In summary, the time to act is now. Your signature, your talent, and your financial support are critical to the Constitution Party’s success. Please share this alert with family and friends of like mind. Working together we can make a difference. If we are to restore our government to the principles of Integrity, Liberty, and Prosperity that our nation was founded upon, it will take the individual and untiring effort of each of us.

Conquest Changes Everything: Build the Wall

At my very first class session on my first day of college, I encountered a world-weary psychology professor in the twilight of his career. He was unyielding on class deadlines, with one exception.

“If you can tell me an excuse I’ve never heard before,” he told his wide-eyed freshmen, “I’ll give you an A.” Many of us gave it a shot during that semester, but I never heard of anybody getting the A.

His offer was strategic. Much of our success over the ensuing 40+ years would, in fact, depend on the quality of our excuses. “A lie is an abomination unto the Lord,” Mark Twain quipped, “and an ever-present help in time of trouble.”

But lying to authority figures is one thing. Lying to your children is something else. And so it’s not very hard to forgive illegal aliens who lie about their status in order to put food on the family table, but not so easy to forgive Baby Boomers who lie to their grandchildren that America’s going to be just fine with open borders.

Our American grandchildren need a barrier at our southern border, and soon. Without it, the United States will cease to exist, perhaps within your grandchild’s lifetime.

What would that ending look like? Chicano activist and professor Charles Trujillo has predicted a merger of the U.S. and Mexico, after which fertile immigrants would overtake the native-born voting population, without a shot fired. But he has also called secession of the Southwest from America inevitable, due to recent immigration.

His colleague Armando Navarro, who says he takes inspiration from Saul Alinsky, Vladimir Lenin and Che Guevara, advocates a forcible occupation of the Southwest. “A secessionist movement isn’t something you can put away and say it’s never going to happen in the United States,” Prof. Navarro writes. “Time and history change.”

He has a point.

What if a hypothetical resurgent Mexico not only occupied the Southwest but drove north and east to conquer America from sea to shining sea? Would Mexico’s title to Indianapolis be valid under American property law? Yes, and it’s not even a close question.

The Supreme Court settled that issue in 1823, when it decided Johnson v. McIntosh, a case about Native Americans’ attempt to sell their land to whites. That decision established once and for all that conquest confers title. It even trumps good-faith bilateral contracts for purchase.

If we’re under the impression that we can cut a side deal with invaders, that we can deal away our grandchildren’s sovereignty but keep our property and privileges, we’re playing a very dangerous game. The truth is that conquest trumps not only property rights, it effectively trumps all rights. Match wits with a burnt-out academic if you insist, but let’s not lie to our grandchildren.

Conquest changes everything. Don’t put your grandchildren through it. Build the wall.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.