Texas Lawmakers Are Taking the Longhorns to the Bathroom Crybullies, and It’s Freakin’ AWESOME

When it comes to taking on the LGBT lobby’s cultural cronies, officials in Texas are setting a new standard for conservative lawmakers, and going on the offensive against recent threats from the National Football League.

It all began when legislators introduced SB 6, a state-level privacy bill that would dare violate and blaspheme the LGBT lobby’s latest commandment: “Thou shalt not leave bathroom safety policies up to private institutions.”

Of course, the anticipated dragoons of artists and musicians deployed in an initial strike against the bill, as they have done countless other. But now the professional sports have gotten involved.

The most pertinent development in the brewing Lonestar Bathroom Battle™ came when the NFL issued a statement saying that, if passed, the legislation might interfere with future Super Bowls in the state.

“The NFL is walking on thin ice right here,” Republican Governor Greg Abbott told Glenn Beck Tuesday. “The NFL needs to concentrate on playing football and get the heck out of politics.”

A day later, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick doubled down, going after NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s alleged hypocrisy on the issue:

“The NFL embraces inclusiveness,” an NFL spokesman told the Houston Chronicle in an email last week. “We want all fans to feel welcomed at our events, and NFL policies prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard.”

Of course, the NFL, its teams, its owners, and its vendors can embrace whatever bathroom policy they want at games and events. The Texas bill – just like its maligned and misrepresented sister in North Carolina – is written to give private institutions the freedom to do so. If the NFL wants to enforce that everyone in the stands be assigned a different set of restrooms every quarter and institute a free-for-all co-ed scenario during halftime at every Cowboys game, the state would have no recourse under the provisions of SB 6.

These, however, are facts — “stubborn things” that should never be allowed to get in the way of a tear-jerking leftist narrative. Meanwhile, rather than wait out the inevitable storm, Patrick and Abbott are taking the fight to the cultural cronies themselves – disarming the playbook and pointing out the Left’s absurdity before it happens in full form. (For more from the author of “Texas Lawmakers Are Taking the Longhorns to the Bathroom Crybullies, and It’s Freakin’ AWESOME” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pedo Ring-Flynn Tweet Big

Global PEDOPHILIA Rings Exposed and Arrested — Where’s U.S. Press Coverage?

“Pizzagate” is a familiar pop culture buzzword and everyone probably knows what it means or that it is affiliated with sexual abuse of children, especially in Washington, DC. However, there has been breaking news about world-wide arrests regarding pedophilia, but the U.S. media and television—other than CBS journalist Ben Swann in Atlanta, Georgia—have not investigated the problem to expose it and its perpetrators.

In Canada, a recent Project Spade press conference took place, which you can listen to here.

The U.S. Postal Service was represented at the Toronto press conference. How come the U.S. press has not covered that international event? Some children as young as five years old were involved. What a scourge upon society! By the way, have you heard the rumblings that some want to have pedophilia made legal? What is wrong with society?

How high up the professional ladders do these sick activities go; who will be exposed and how soon—barring none at any level of involvement, including the swamp in Washington, DC, which has been alleged to be crawling with pedophiles in all levels of government. Why isn’t the U.S. media investigating and reporting on it? What say you Washington Post?

Here’s coverage of a California pedophilia bust, which ought to make people wonder why it wasn’t national front page news plus a short clip on the DA’s press conference on sexual exploitation arrests across southern California.

Lastly, a huge pedophilia-sex operation was exposed in Norway. Did you hear anything about that on the nightly news? Here’s some of the information that surfaced:

Norwegian police have filed charges against 51 people suspected of various kinds of abuse of children including babies. Even the future abuse of yet unborn children was discussed in the country’s largest ever pedophile ring. [CJF emphasis added]

Truly one of the sick, sad and pathetic parts about pedophilia is those who are educated and should know better.

Several perpetrators were obviously familiar to their immediate environments. Family and friends reacted with shock when they were arrested. Perpetrators come from all walks of life, many of them have a higher education, possess high IT skills and have used encryption to hide their tracks,” prosecutor Janne Ringset Heltne told NRK. [CJF emphasis added]

Abuse of children at any level, in any form/format, including vaccines neurotoxic ingredients, has to stop, and all responsible government agencies must be made to deal with it whether they like it or not, or want to or not, since, apparently, many at the top may be involved. (For more from the author of “Global PEDOPHILIA Rings Exposed and Arrested — Where’s U.S. Press Coverage?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Levin Unpacks the Real Scandal Behind Michael Flynn’s Resignation

In an effort to help the Trump White House and “feckless” Republicans running for cover from the post-Flynn fallout, Mark Levin asked the real question about the recent intelligence leaks that led to National Secuirty Advisor Michael Flynn’s departure: “What did Barack Obama know and when did he know it?”

“Where did the orders come from to intercept these phone calls? To record these phone calls?” Levin asked on his radio show Wednesday night. And, most-importantly, “Who knew about it?”


“It is not that simple to get authorization from the FISA court … particularly when it comes to private citizens,” Levin said, recalling his experience in Reagan’s Department of Justice. “So the question is how many of these phone calls were intercepted and recorded by the Obama administration.”

“This, ladies and gentlemen, is the real scandal,” Levin concluded. “Because even the NYT has to admit that there is no evidence” Michael Flynn broke the law by communicating with his Russian counterparts.

It’s also important to know, Levin added, how many other members of the Trump team had their communications intercepted by the Obama administration.

“I don’t believe this intercept was a one-off,” he said. “I suspect there have been a lot more intercepts and I don’t believe that he is the only one.” (For more from the author of “Levin Unpacks the Real Scandal Behind Michael Flynn’s Resignation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Barack_Obama_at_Las_Vegas_Presidential_Forum (2)

How Obama Is Scheming to Sabotage Trump’s Presidency

When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.

In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.

Since Donald Trump’s election, this little-known but well-funded protesting arm has beefed up staff and ramped up recruitment of young liberal activists, declaring on its website, “We’re not backing down.” Determined to salvage Obama’s legacy,”it’s drawing battle lines on immigration, ObamaCare, race relations and climate change.

Obama is intimately involved in OFA operations and even tweets from the group’s account. In fact, he gave marching orders to OFA foot soldiers following Trump’s upset victory. (Read more from “How Obama Is Scheming to Sabotage Trump’s Presidency” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


UNBELIEVABLE: Far Left Trump Haters Calling for Genocide Against White People, Press Totally Silent

As Americans who recognize the equal place under God of every person, and under law of every citizen, whatever his background, would we find it acceptable if conservative organizations started cooperating with white nationalists?

What if Republicans organized protests against left-wing campus speakers employing violent gangs of whites who wanted to stop non-whites from having children, because they regard other races as a plague on our species?

What if a conservative newspaper employed a spokesman for a radical white racist group, and he wrote on social media that all black men are a threat to public safety? Or if the co-founder of that organization described non-whites as genetically defective, the result of destructive mutations? Imagine if groups with racist agendas like these had instigated riots after the election of President Obama.

No one would need to wait for the social justice left to be outraged at such uncivil, hateful, and destructive abuse of free speech. People from all across the spectrum, including every Christian conservative leader in the country, would step forth to distance themselves from these ideas, and demand that the relevant GOP officials and conservative leaders who’d cooperated with those racists be removed from their positions.

So why are we hearing crickets from Democratic and liberal leaders about the thuggish tactics of the “Antifa” (supposedly anti-fascist) demonstrators who rioted at UC Berkeley when Milo Yiannopolis tried to speak by invitation? Since these groups’ attack on Constitutionally protected free political speech at a college campus doesn’t seem to bother anyone on the high-minded left, maybe this news will: The “Antifa” group in Seattle appears to have posted fliers warning white people not to have children:

Just an isolated incident that might have been a fake? Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so. But there’s evidence that such attitudes go far beyond Seattle. The Toronto Sun reports that Yusra Khogali, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, revealed the same racist agenda, aimed at eliminating white people:


Even professional journalists feel emboldened to engage in such dangerous talk. Shaun King, a highly visible activist in Black Lives Matter who works for a mainstream liberal tabloid, The New York Daily News, responded to the appalling news that former Penn State athletic coach Jerry Sandusky’s son has been arrested for sexually abusing children (as his father did) with this uplifting reflection:

We have already seen that colleges are removing writers like Shakespeare and Milton from reading lists, solely because they are white men. MTV published a public service announcement in which non-whites and women told white men how to rectify their misbehavior in public. (You might enjoy The Stream‘s tongue-in-cheek response: “My 2017 Resolutions for Minorities and Women.)

But really, there’s nothing funny at all about this kind of divisive rhetoric, or the dangerous undercurrents of group hatred that underlie it. What we’re seeing is the tip of the iceberg, the statements and actions of those who feel bold and secure enough to vent their secret feelings in public. Such open expression of ethnic hatred, unrebuked and virtually unanswered, is profoundly destructive. It’s the kind of talk we saw in Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s, as the prelude to organized violence.

The whole point of the Civil Rights Movement was to remove the question of race from issues of citizenship, to exorcise at last the demon of tribalism from American public life. Those claiming to speak on behalf of minority groups, who lapse into language that would have made racists like Margaret Sanger proud, are betraying everything that Civil Rights demonstrators worked, fought, and died for. (For more from the author of “Far Left Trump Haters Calling for Genocide Against White People” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Scalia Breaks It Down: Is There a ‘Right’ to Immigrate to the US?

Monday marks a year since the tragedy of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death while on a hunting trip in west Texas, and his legal insight remains as poignant and pertinent as the day he left this world.

The Ninth Circuit court has recently come under fire from all sides for their “absurd,” “dangerous,” and “damningly silly” ruling against President Donald Trump’s travel suspension. And the current dustup between the judiciary and the executive — as well as the impending nomination fight over Scalia’s successor — raises the question on the anniversary of his death: What would Justice Scalia have to say about all this?

While we will never know the answer to that on this side of paradise, the late jurist’s dissent in a previous immigration case might offer some insight.

The case was Zadvydas v. Davis in 2001. The question before the court was whether or not the executive branch had a right to detain an alien set for deportation indefinitely, or if the 90-day detention period created some sort of “right” to be released back into the general population.

While the 5-4 majority ruled that the detention period was limited to 90 days, Scalia dissented (joined by Clarence Thomas), arguing that the rights of aliens to be deported run along the same lines as those at the border seeking entry.

Here’s what Scalia had to say about both:

“Insofar as a claimed legal right to release into this country is concerned. “An alien under final order of removal stands on an equal footing with an inadmissible alien at the threshold of entry: He has no such right.

“We are offered no justification why an alien under a valid and final order of removal – which has totally extinguished whatever right to presence in this country he possessed – has any greater due process right to be released into the country than an alien at the border seeking entry.”

Scalia makes this point its simplest, by offering: “[A]n inadmissible alien at the border has no right to be in the United States.”

In the case, Scalia also goes back to Justice Robert Jackson’s dissent from in Shaughnessy v. United States in 1953, which Justice Frankfurter joined:

“Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will. Nothing in the Constitution requires admission or sufferance of aliens hostile to our scheme of government.”

This, of course, doesn’t mean that someone’s human rights are contingent upon their citizenship, but that but that there is no such thing as a right for a person to enter the country of which they are not a citizen. “[Another previous immigration case] at least involved aliens under final order of deportation,” explained Scalia in the Zadvydas dissent. “But all it held is that they could not be subjected to the punishment of hard labor without a judicial trial. I am sure they cannot be tortured, as well–but neither prohibition has anything to do with their right to be released into the United States.”

Yet the Ninth Circuit has ruled that every potential migrant in a terror-infested warzone of a failed state now has constitutional due process rights to come in whenever they want, that government institutions somehow suffer “Concrete and Particularized Injury” as a result, and that campaign statements are fair game in evaluating a law.

A year since his passing, Scalia’s absence has left an unmistakable void on American jurisprudence, and time will only tell if Trump’s Supreme Court pick will prove up to the task of following such a titanic presence on the bench.

One thing is certain, however: As the federal circuits slip further and further into absolute legal nonsense like that seen last week, Justice Antonin Scalia’s witty, commonsensical clarity will only be missed more and more. (For more from the author of “Scalia Breaks It Down: Is There a ‘Right’ to Immigrate to the US?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Rescind the Executive Order — and Replace It With Many Tougher Ones

President Trump needs to deny the Left a victory over his immigration executive order. The court challenge heard by the infamously unconstitutional and extremist 9th Circuit threatens to set a precedent that will codify open borders and leave the president powerless to protect us. Trump can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and deny the Left their unconscionable and unconstitutional attempted power grab by rescinding this EO and issuing stronger multiple replacements as stand alone orders.

The president cannot lose here. We must protect our borders; keep out the terrorists and rein in out-of-control immigration. It is the signal issue that got him elected. It is also the signal action needed to save this country from the Left’s malevolent intentions. The Left is attempting to subvert our country by simply replacing its population with a more malleable, sympathetic one. Unlike the immigrants of yesteryear, today’s are largely illiterate, welfare-dependent, unwilling to learn our language and definitely hostile to American culture and traditions. And while they are in many cases fleeing conditions created by their countries’ socialist policies, they nonetheless bring socialist ideas with them. As our country has become more “multi-cultural”, it has drifted ever leftward.

This was no mistake.

President Trump can and must rescind this executive order. Despite it’s hesitation, the [en banc] 9th Circuit is virtually guaranteed to agree with the ruling by District Judge Robert Chambers halting Trump’s immigration ban. As the initial complaint was not justified by immigration law, which provides the president clear authority to do what he did, it would set a horrible precedent in eroding the president’s ability to protect the nation. If it goes to the Supreme Court, it will likely lose. Justice Kennedy will side with the leftists. With an 8 person court, even a 4-4 decision would mean the 9th Circuit ruling holds. Even with Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, a likely Kennedy defection would mean 5-4 for the Left. And support for Trump’s position is not even certain with Gorsuch.

Rescinding the EO would be a victory, not a defeat. First, it would prevent the Left from getting a major win in court that would alter permanently a president’s ability to control our borders. The lawsuit and likely favorable court ruling defy immigration law. They should not be allowed to get away with it. As abominable as it is, the current state of enforcement is better than what would result. The Left would like to thwart Trump’s agenda with endless lawsuits. Their victory here will encourage much more of the same.

But more importantly, Trump should reissue a score of executive orders that address the same issues as the current one, but make them even more muscular. If the Left is going to play dirty like this, make them pay for it. Give them something they will dislike even more and force them to fight many battles instead of just one. Perhaps that will cool their ardor for obstructionist lawsuits and nationwide, Democrat funded violence that threatens to drag this country into civil war:

1. Replace the 3 month ban on immigration from seven terrorist-producing nations with a 6 month ban on the same seven nations. President Obama issued a six-month ban on refugees from Iraq in 2011. He did so after two Kentucky-based Iraqi refugees were discovered to be former insurgent IED makers. So much for our supposedly infallible vetting process. Despite much-ballyhooed improvements, the current vetting procedure places almost all emphasis on processing refugees as quickly as possible, with few, if any national security safeguards. The seven nations were also first identified by the Obama DHS.

2. Consider expanding the list to all nations of terrorism concern. The State Department keeps a list which formally includes State Sponsors of Terrorism: Syria, Sudan, Iran, and Countries of Particular Concern: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. Those countries on the DHS list not identified by the State Department, i.e. Somalia, Libya, Yemen and Iraq, should be added to State’s list.

3. Extend suspension of the refugee admissions program (USRAP) to a full year as requested by numerous members of Congress and cities all over the country begging for relief. (It now only lasts 120 days). President Trump does not need an executive order for this. He can simply send a letter to Congress, informing it of his intentions. Refugee caps for FY 2017 would be reduced to zero.

4. Issue all other components of the current EO as separate, standalone orders. Many of these are not challenged by the court in this EO, but are desperately needed. For example: ending the Obama administration’s insane policy of allowing U.S. entry of foreign nationals who have aided terrorists, focusing on those refugee minorities facing the worst persecution (e.g. the Christians that Obama ignored), enacting uniform screening standards for all immigrants, suspending the visa waiver program, completing the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System, visa reciprocity, and data transparency.

Trump needs to rescind this executive order to snatch victory out of the Left’s intolerable hands. He needs to replace it with others that will punish the Left for their vicious, relentless, unconstitutional and often illegal tactics, and force them to fight every single item, piece by piece.

Posted with permission of the author.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

U.S. Post Office & Courthouse, 7th & Mission Sts, SF

No Longer a Nation of Laws, Ninth Circuit Usurps Presidential Powers on Immigration Ban

San Francisco’s federal appeals court asserted a novel theory on Thursday to claim jurisdiction over the legal challenge to Executive Order 13769, affirming the lower court’s order halting President Trump’s temporary travel-restriction policy. . .

The Ninth Circuit went on to reject several of the tenuous theories the states of Washington and Minnesota asserted to claim standing to bring this lawsuit. Nonetheless, a three-judge panel of the court adopted one of the novel theories asserted by the state, holding that, “as the operators of state universities, the States may assert not only their own rights to the extent affected by the Executive Order but may also assert the rights of their students and faculty members.” Some of those students are effected by the immigration order.

President Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that Congress has plenary authority over all immigration decisions, and that Congress had delegated complete discretion to the president in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to make such decisions, especially when national security was at stake. . .

[Listen to Joe Miller Hammer the Ninth Circuit:]

The court held that the executive order likely violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, holding that the “Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel”. . .

The court also gave at least some credence to what many considered one of the most tenuous claims in the lawsuit, the one asserting that appearing to prefer Christianity over Islam for immigrants violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. (Read more from “No Longer a Nation of Laws, Ninth Circuit Usurps Presidential Powers on Immigration Ban” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Here’s a Preview of Where Transanity Is Leading Us

You had to know this was going to happen, and it did, in Scotland. An imprisoned man who identifies as a woman got transferred to a women’s prison, only to be transferred to a men’s prison because he was having sex with the female inmates. Welcome to the world of transanity.

The man in question, referred to in an article on the UK’s Metro only as Paris Green, was found guilty (along with two of his friends) of torturing and murdering another man, for which he was sentenced to at least 18 years in prison. A story on Breitbart gives his original name as Peter Laing, noting that this is not the first time he was accused of inappropriate conduct with female inmates.

Remarkably, in keeping with today’s ridiculous PC journalistic standards, the Metro article refers to Laing/Green in female terms only, with lines like this: “A transgender murderer has been moved from a women’s prison following claims she had sex with female inmates”; and, “She was jailed for 18 years” (my emphasis).

And then, the most telling line of all, from an anonymous source: “The women want sex and Paris is the only person who can give it to them.”

But of course, because Paris is Peter, a biological male, with male private parts and a male sex drive and a male attraction to women. In other words, as the only male inmate in a women’s prison, he’s the obvious (and only) choice for male-female inmate sex. Identifying as a female certainly has its perks.

Truly Transgender — Or Manipulator?

Not surprisingly, the sister of the man killed by Laing/Green questions the sincerity of his female identity, noting, “It’s costing the Prison Service a fortune moving him from jail to jail.” (She’s referring to the fact that this is the second time he’s been moved from a female prison for allegedly having sex with the female inmates. And remember: He has not yet had sex change surgery, so he remains a functionally biological male.)

The bereaved sister added, “The whole thing is a joke. We don’t believe he really wants a sex change. He’s just trying to manipulate the system and the tax payer is footing the bill.”

Of course, only God and Laing/Green know the truth about this. Is he genuinely confused about his gender identity, or is he cynically exploiting the system? In any case, let’s remember that it is transgender activists who constantly remind us that gender identity is different than sexual orientation.

In other words, while a gay man is attracted to other men, a man who identifies as a woman (referred to today as a transgender woman) need not be attracted to men. This means that while identifying as a woman, he is still attracted to women, hence Peter/Paris’s sexual activity with other women.

Naturally, transgender activists have an answer for this as well, telling us that a man who identifies as a woman but is attracted to women is actually a lesbian in a man’s body, in which case his true identity is as a lesbian. Is your head spinning yet?

Back to Reality

Coming back to reality, this unfortunate lesson from the Scottish prison system reminds us of an inconvenient truth that is often ignored in the debate about transgender access to bathrooms and locker rooms.

Let’s say that 16-year-old John identifies as a girl but is heterosexual, and he wants to play on the girls’ sports team and share their bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower stalls (a “right” for which the Obama administration fought vigorously). That means that John, who perhaps wants to be called Jane, will still be attracted to girls — the very ones he’ll be playing with and undressing with and showering with.

This doesn’t mean he’s a sexual predator. It just means that he’s a male teenager, naturally attracted to females, which is one reason why he’s supposed to use the boys’ bathroom, locker room, and shower stalls.

Yet to say this is to be transphobic and insensitive.

Similarly, let’s say that 30-year-old Charlie, who identifies as Charlene but remains a biological, heterosexual male, wants to change in the ladies’ locker room at the YMCA. This means that Charlie will be checking out the ladies there, since he’s heterosexual, and if the women complain to management that they feel uncomfortable, they will be branded troublemakers.

I’m aware, of course, that there are people who struggle deeply with gender identity issues, people who find themselves between a rock and a hard place when it comes to which bathroom or locker room to use, people who are doing their best to fit in and ignore the people looking at them as if they were some kind of freak.

As I’ve said many times before, I do not minimize their struggles and I long to see them find true and lasting wholeness. This recent report from Scotland, however, reminds us of the upside-down world in which we live, one where a biological, heterosexual male who identifies as a woman gets kicked out of a women’s prison for having sex with the female inmates and is still referred to as “she” throughout.

This societal madness must stop. There must surely be a better way. (For more from the author of “Here’s a Preview of Where Transanity Is Leading Us” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

29381357345_27b53e0902_b (4)

You’ve Heard People Compare Trump to Hitler. So We Asked a Woman Who Was Born in Nazi Germany…

A popular talking point on the left is that Donald Trump has things in common with Hitler.

But is this the case? Independent Journal Review decided to speak to a woman born in Nazi Germany about the comparison . . .

[Inga] Andrews said:

“What is going on in this country is giving me chills. Trump is not like Hitler. Just because a leader wants order doesn’t mean they’re like a dictator.

What reminds me more of Hitler than anything else isn’t Trump, it’s the destruction of freedom of speech on the college campuses — the agendas fueled by the professors.”

(Read more from “You’ve Heard People Compare Trump to Hitler. So We Asked a Woman Who Was Born in Nazi Germany…” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.