Lefties: Get Used to Your Daughters Losing to Mustached ‘Girls’

Romans 1.

That’s where we live now. No one forced us to set up camp there; we actually bought tickets and went voluntarily.

We even let our children be the canaries in that ghastly and demonic coal mine.

I know it’s all the rage to complain about helicopter parents hovering over their children’s every move, but we could have used a little more hovering in Connecticut recently. There, a troubled mustached 15-year-old boy who feels pretty won the state 100- and 200-meter dash titles, as a freshman.

Heck, hovering doesn’t even begin to describe what I would have done if my daughter had earned a place to run in that race. I would have gone all Gandalf: “You shall not pass!” I would have made them arrest me out in the middle of that track.

But doing nothing but mindlessly cheering while your daughter’s dreams are being shattered is pretty close to that, I guess. Any word if this dude hit the showers after the race with these girls against their will?

Oh, CNN’s Chris Cuomo called and told them to get over themselves if they don’t want to see any naked roosters in the hen house. Because men who like their Wonder Woman without hairy armpits are the real threat to women’s equality, we’re told. (Certainly not men who enjoy diminishing women’s physical triumphs, before disrobing in front of them and demanding they smile.)

What in God’s name is wrong with us?

This is actually happening. I actually am writing this column. And I am left with the cold, hard truth that if we won’t fight on something as elemental and obvious as boys-can’t-be-girls, we sadly deserve the cultural annihilation to come.

The same feminists who once sang “I am woman, hear me roar” are now strangely silent as opportunities are taken from our daughters — not to mention their hopes and dreams of being the next Mia Hamm, Serena Williams, or a host of other women who paved the way for the next generation’s moment in the sun.

Who needs the heteronormative patriarchy when you’ve got transgender, SJW madness … and the tyranny that comes along with a culture drunk on its own decadence?

My editor, Todd Erzen, has a middle school daughter who is one of the fastest distance runners in the entire country for her age category. Yet, at a recent event that she won handily, the majority of the boys who performed after her beat her time. Why? It’s called testosterone — boys and girls. And knowing that it is called testosterone — and not “patriarchy” — is called “brains.”

Indeed, Connecticut’s boy “girls’ champion” would’ve finished dead last in his rightful categories.

Yet not even almighty science can save us; it will be cast aside by progressives faster than you can say “Christianity” when it doesn’t provide a free pass to the dystopian fever swamp. Just as one example, an old episode of “Bill Nye the Science Guy” was recently edited in order to conveniently conform scientific fact about gender and sex to our current politically correct delusion.

Speaking of brains, here’s more inconvenient science from Dr. Larry Cahill, professor of neurobiology and behavior at UC Irvine. Neuroscience literature shows that the human brain is a sex-typed organ, says Dr. Cahill, with distinct anatomical differences in neural structures and accompanying physiological differences in function. Now that’s some “born this way” you can take to the bank, Lady Gaga.

This Connecticut fiasco is an affront to reason. For, on one hand, progressives say if we believe marriage is between a man and a woman we’re bigots. But then if men steal gold medals from women, they’re a new-age Rosa Parks or something. You have to be devoid of any and all discernment to assert such moral anarchy simultaneously.

Our girls are being told that they don’t matter as much as the boy who dresses up like a girl and beats them. It’s his word against hers. Just keep your mouth shut, and nobody gets hurt … supposedly.

Old and busted are the movies made about the real-life heroines who refused to accept such terms; the new hotness is enjoying the heavy bedazzled hand of your male transgendered oppressors, and their lackluster “feminist” enablers.

Gone are the days when Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts, or Sissy Spacek would play the “she stood alone” role; enter the era of Bruce Jenner trading in his decathlon gold for “Tales of Social Justice Dumbassery.” Such as what it’s like to trade in the cover of a Wheaties box for an endorsement deal with CoverGirl.

One size – so to speak – fits all, ladies. Hope you enjoy your participation ribbons, because the medal stand is now reserved for those “women” whose necks must be shaved on the regular. (For more from the author of “Lefties: Get Used to Your Daughters Losing to Mustached ‘Girls'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LGBT Community Celebrates 8-Year-Old Drag Queen

The bawdy, homosexuality-infused world of female impersonators is celebrating an eight-year-old Montreal boy who performs as a “drag queen” under the stage name “Lactatia.” But pro-family critics say his parents and all adults who encourage the boy to participate in the lewd shows are guilty of “child abuse.”

Thanks to “gay” media, the cross-dressing boy, Nemis Quinn Mélançon-Golden, is becoming a social media star after appearing on stage in late May with vulgar drag queen “Bianca Del Rio” at the Montreal stop of the “Werq the World Tour.” Del Rio tells Nemis — wearing red eye-liner, lipstick, painted nails, a curly, blond wig and dressed in a black woman’s gown with sequins — that he is “[f—k—g] adorable.”

Like every other pro-family advocate shown the video of young Nemis in “drag,” Illinois Family Institute cultural writer Laurie Higgins was aghast at the specter of a young boy embracing the “drag queen” lifestyle, telling LifeSiteNews, “This is unambiguous and shameful child abuse. Through the ‘trans’ cult movement, evil is being promoted as good, and innocent women and children are the victims.”

Drag shows feature campy men dressing up as crude caricatures of women — with grotesque bouffant hairdos and gaudy dresses — engaging in catty, often sodomitic jokes slamming other “queens” and lip-syncing over-the-top impersonations of pop-culture divas like Cher and Britney Spears.

Historically an important part of “gay” culture, drag shows are now a fixture of urban entertainment, attracting both homosexuals and straights. (Read more from “LGBT Community Celebrates 8-Year-Old Drag Queen” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The True Bradley ‘Chelsea’ Manning Story Is Stranger Than Fiction

Imagine this scenario for a moment. You are a budding novelist, and you present a new proposal to your agent. The agent looks it over and sends it back, assuring you no publisher would ever go for it. “It’s just too far-fetched,” you are told. “Best to go back to the drawing board.”

What was the scenario you concocted? It went like this.

The Plot

There was a gay private in the army who gained access to a cachet of nearly one million secret military documents. When his gay lover broke up with him, he was depressed. So he decided to download and release these documents, likely costing the lives of our men and women on the field.

He was tried and convicted of crimes against the state and sentenced to 35 years in prison. However, while in prison, he insisted he was actually a woman, not a man. Eventually, the government paid for his sex-change surgery, after which the president decided to commute his sentence. After which he was hailed as a national hero and did his first TV interview, now as a woman.

Well, I could see why a publisher would reject such a story. Who would ever believe a narrative like this? It strains credulity — especially the part about this guy becoming a national hero. But, as the saying proves true once again, truth is stranger than fiction.

The Truth of Bradley Manning

As you realized from the opening lines of this article, this is the true story of Bradley “Chelsea” Manning, not the plot of some far-fetched fiction novel.

Welcome to America, 2017, the country that generates headlines like this: “Transgender man and father-of-two adopted children happily announces he is pregnant with his gay husband, a year after suffering a miscarriage.”

Try to wrap your brain around that one for a while. A transgender man is pregnant. He has a gay husband. He previously suffered a miscarriage.

In other words, this is a woman who identifies as a man, who is “married” to a man who is attracted to men (even if they have female private parts and woman), and “he” is now pregnant after having a miscarriage.

It reminds me of another story I read some years ago in the Village Voice, originally published in 2000 (yes, 17 years ago). It was titled, “Two Dads with a Difference: Neither of Us Was Born Male.” As the article, written by one of the “Dads” explained, “We are transgendered men (female-to-male, or FTM). My boyfriend is the mother of my child.”

So, in this case, two women, apparently attracted to men, chose to identify as gay men. But at least one of them still had her female organs and so could conceive and give birth to a child. (I wonder what happened to that precious child?)

Against backdrops like this, I guess the Bradley-Chelsea Manning story isn’t that unbelievable at all, if not for the political intrigue.

According to reports in 2010, “The US Army intelligence analyst, who is half British and went to school in Wales, appeared to sink into depression after a relationship break-up, saying he didn’t ‘have anything left’ and was ‘beyond frustrated.’

“In an apparent swipe at the army, he also wrote: ‘Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment,’ and quoted a joke about ‘military intelligence’ being an oxymoron.”

Manning claims that he released the documents to Wikileaks because “I have a responsibility to the public.” Our military, he argues, was covering up atrocities we committed against our enemies. So with little or no thought to the consequences of his actions, he decided to play the hero.

Not Everyone in the LGBT Community is Applauding

Interestingly, although Manning has become an LGBT icon, not everyone in the LGBT community has celebrated his actions.

Writing for Out.com in 2012, James Kirchick declared, “Bradley Manning is No Gay Hero.” He felt Manning disgraced the names of gays who had served with distinction in the military, writing, “Rather than claim Bradley Manning as a hero of the gay community and campaign for his release, we should be the ones advocating most loudly that he face the strictest possible punishment for his treachery.”

But now that Bradley is Chelsea, how could he not be an LGBT hero? Being “courageous” enough to transition from male to female (or vice versa) as a public figure is the instant path to fame. Then, getting pardoned by the president — what more could you ask for?

I seriously doubt that Bradley Manning would have been pardoned by the president if he had been a conservative, heterosexual Christian. And I seriously doubt that he would have been hailed as a hero by other conservatives, even if felt it his duty to expose alleged military abuses.

But because he was: 1) gay; 2) upset with the military; and 3) transgender, his cause proved irresistible.

A Surprise Twist?

So, maybe you can write that novel after all.

Or better still, how about adding a surprise ending to the plot, a real twist? Chelsea Manning has a radical encounter with God, resulting in a dramatic conversion, after which he goes back to being Bradley, marries a fine Christian woman, and spends the rest of the years undoing the damage he did.

I would buy that book. (For more from the author of “The True Bradley ‘Chelsea’ Manning Story Is Stranger Than Fiction” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Admin. Election SCANDAL


Toobin’s take … Shortly after the public testimony of James Comey ended, CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin casually dropped a bomb, without evidence. Toobin said that President Donald Trump was under criminal investigation. He is pretty much the only one saying that, and he didn’t say why he thinks that. Nothing in the Comey testimony confirmed it. Take a deeper look

Dershowitz slams pundits like Toobin … For a few weeks, liberal law professor and ardent constitutionalist Alan Dershowitz has been trying to explain that the president has the legal authority to stop any investigation. Comey reluctantly admitted as much during his testimony yesterday. Now Dershowitz is taking a victory lap of sorts and admonishing those who are pushing a false narrative.

Media won’t cover Lynch bombshell … CNN’s John King admitted that the bombshell testimony of James Comey — that Loretta Lynch allegedly intervened in the server investigation on behalf of Hillary Clinton — won’t get much coverage. King said that “this won’t get much attention because it’s in the rearview mirror …” Our friends at NewsBusters have the full story.


He thought it was manga … Vanity Fair’s Kurt Eichenwald got caught with his cyber pants down. When he tweeted a photo including a browser tab with “hentai” on it, instead of coming clean, he chose to blame his kids. His story was that he was merely trying to show his wife that people look at deviant things with tentacles, and he did it for his kids because their mom wouldn’t believe them. Sometimes it is best to stop digging, Kurt.

It couldn’t be the Obama administration … NYT editor Jonathan Weisman tweeted out that “Comey says Attorney General Sessions told him not to call Russia probe an investigation but a ‘matter.’ Led him to step away from DOJ.” Which is completely opposite to what Comey actually said. It was Loretta Lynch who told Comey to call the Clinton server investigation a “matter.” Another instance of the media acting “without evidence.”

Marc Ambinder not much better … Former White House correspondent and current Annenberg Media fellow Marc Ambinder tweeted about the Lynch admission. But he left out a lot of detail. Here’s the tweet where he said, “The AG asked him to call it a ‘matter,’ not an investigation.” Um … Marc, which AG, and which matter?

All the news fit to tweet … I know you were breathlessly wanting to know if Trump broke his own record for not tweeting. Well, probably not. But the Washington Post’s Philip Bump thought you wanted to know, so he tweeted it. I’ll let you go straight to the record by clicking to see Bump’s tweet. File under “yawn.”

(For more from the author of “Obama Admin. Election SCANDAL” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Altercation in Texas Exposes the Heart of Fake News

“Fake news” has become a widespread accusation, but what does it actually mean?

Is it something that’s been invented out of whole cloth, like H.G. Wells’ planetary invaders?

Different definitions abound, but I submit that fake news, at its core, is reporting in which the journalist selectively chooses and ignores facts, and interprets or paraphrases those facts to reach an unwarranted conclusion that conveniently validates his own views.

It goes to the heart of how many reporters see their job these days.

Readers may have seen the recent “news” about a physical fracas on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives, which reported that Republican Rep. Matt Rinaldi confronted a Democrat and engaged in aggressive verbal back-and-forth.

The report said the altercation came to a climax when Rinaldi said, “I’ll put a bullet in your head” to the “the Democrat he alleged was menacing,” in the words of the Dallas Morning News account.

For context, this was the last day of the legislative session, and a large and boisterous group of self-described illegal immigrants were holding signs that read, “Illegal and Here to Stay.”

It was in response to this protest that Rinaldi, according to the original report, said to the protesters he was calling Immigration and Customs Enforcement—prompting a physical tussle between Rinaldi and Rep. Poncho Nevarez and then the “bullet in your head” threat.

Media outlets around the country carried this report.

But what actually happened here, and which part was “fake”?

We now know that the demonstration, which was indeed loud and noisy, took place inside the Capitol building and spilled onto the floor of the Legislature, which is highly unusual and not allowed.

The “demonstrators”—or more accurately, the provocateurs—quickly outnumbered and overpowered the legislative security forces. That’s what caused Rinaldi to say, “I’m calling ICE.” (For the record, they never showed up.)

Next, the alleged altercation.

Cellphone video, which appears to have been taken by multiple people and released in the aftermath of the fracas, shows the demonstrators pushing and shoving Rinaldi, who kept his arms to his chest or at his side.

The audio only reveals grunting and the typical sounds of a physical engagement, punctuated by semi-coherent cries of “stop that.”

In the immediate aftermath, Nevarez came up to Rinaldi, got in his face, and said, “When you leave, I’ll get you.” Within minutes, he again came up and said, “You have to leave sometime, and I know where your car is parked and I’ll get you.”

At that point, Rinaldi said something like, “I’m armed and I’ll defend myself.”

Rep. Jonathan Strickland, R-Bedford, was one of two representatives who personally witnessed this and confirmed it by email. Neither is a personal acquaintance, but it wouldn’t have been very difficult to confirm Rinaldi’s version of the story.

But what did the Dallas Morning News report?

Initially, it noted that Rinaldi did tell it that Nevarez did say he would “come get” him, with just “come get” in quotation marks.

It left out the much more provocative and threatening phrases, “You’ll have to leave sometime,” and “I know where your car is,” plus the fact that Nevarez approached him twice.

Moreover, this sentence was buried in the body of the text.

The allegation that Rinaldi said, “I’ll put a bullet in your head,” came from another Democratic representative, Justin Rodriguez, who admittedly “didn’t witness the initial altercation” and only later said he heard Rinaldi make the comment.

This allegation was also disputed by a number of representatives who were present.

Despite these discrepancies, the Dallas Morning News ran a bold headline quoting the inflammatory words: “’I’ll put a bullet in your head’: Fistfight nearly erupts on final day of contentious legislative session.”

It should be noted that “nearly” is not the same as “did,” and the word “fistfight” overshadows the qualifier “nearly” enough to obliterate it.

Later, Rinaldi issued a statement noting that Nevarez had approached and threatened him, and that he had responded to Nevarez saying he would “shoot him in self-defense.” That’s not exactly what Rinaldi remembers saying, but he let his public statement stand.

Several of Rinaldi’s staff members contacted the Dallas Morning News after the initial story was posted and asked it to change the headline, which they felt was incorrect and misleading.

According to sources with knowledge of the situation, the reporter replied, “There’s no proof he didn’t say it,” adding that because Rodriguez claimed Rinaldi had said it, this was sufficient to justify the headline. The headline remains online today.

Media Aftermath

In the hours and days that followed, dozens of media outlets picked up the “bullet in your head” quote. When the cellphone video came out, several publications did amend their stories to remove allegations that Rinaldi had assaulted Rodriguez or other representatives.

The conservative media, most notably Fox News’ Neil Cavuto, allotted six minutes to report the entire story, complete with video and images of the red-shirted demonstrators swarming the legislators on the floor. Cavuto carefully reviewed the timeline of who said what, and when.

Yet even this past weekend, the Dallas Morning News was still parsing the event and reporting that “Rinaldi acknowledged on his Facebook page that he told Democratic State Rep. Poncho Nevarez of Eagle Pass that he ‘would shoot him in self-defense.’”

There was no mention of Nevarez’s repeated threats (“You have to leave sometime.”).

In addition, the Dallas Morning News was still collecting expert quotes responding to its own description of what happened, rather than what really happened.

One quote was from Southern Methodist University professor Cal Jillson, who said, “In Asia, in places like South Korea and Taiwan, you do have lawmakers with their hands around each other’s throats and fisticuffs. But you don’t usually see that in American politics.”

But as noted above, there was no actual fighting.

Calling Out What’s Fake

This story is tainted by a number of errors.

First and foremost, the quotation, “I’ll put a bullet in your head,” which came from a clearly partisan source, should have been verified and immediately corrected upon learning that it didn’t come from the mouth of Rinaldi.

Next, the original story downplayed or omitted a key part of the story—the initial threats from Nevarez. The comments from Rinaldi were provoked and came in response to aggression from Nevarez. While the Dallas Morning News did include a tweet from Rinaldi mentioning Nevarez’s behavior, there was no mention in the body of the piece about it.

Additionally, the report painted a far more benign picture of the scene on the floor of the Legislature that was accurate. The participants were clearly organized and aiming to provoke a physical response.

Finally, and most “fake” of all, the reporter defended the “bullet in your head” quote of Rinaldi by saying, “There’s no proof he didn’t say it.”

If that’s the standard for journalism today—saying something happened because there’s no proof it didn’t happen—we’ve truly entered the land of the news novella.

What’s the lesson here for ordinary citizens?

Years ago, Erwin Knoll, editor of The Progressive magazine, penned an article titled, “Knoll’s Law of Accuracy in Media.” In that piece, Knoll said: “Everything you read in the press is absolutely true. Except the rare event of which you have personal knowledge.”

That statement proved especially salient in this case, where diving deeper into the evidence makes all the difference.

The lesson for American news consumers is to be skeptical of what you read in all media and take the time to give the facts a second look.

And there’s an additional lesson: Urge journalists to employ a little more self-examination to make sure they don’t cherry-pick the “facts,” quotes, and experts that simply ratify their predetermined conclusions.

And when they do, we should call them on it. (For more from the author of “This Altercation in Texas Exposes the Heart of Fake News” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Real Scandal? Trump Grants Amnesty to 125,000 Illegals in 3 Months

Today, we have unveiled a real scandal in the Trump administration. And no, it has nothing to do with James Comey.

While much of the conservative media is consumed with Comey and Russia, they are missing the irony of defending an administration without even securing some key policy outcomes. The latest betrayal to the Right is the confirmation that Trump’s DHS has issued almost 125,000 “DACA” cards (per Obama’s unlawful Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals order) to illegal aliens through the second quarter of this fiscal year (January through March).

According to newly published data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Trump administration has issued 17,275 initial amnesty cards and over 107,500 renewals of existing status.

This surpasses the 122,000 level of amnesty cards issued during the final quarter of Obama’s presidency (Oct. 1-Dec. 31, 2016), which means the Trump administration is not even slowing down the pace! And although the first 20 days of this quarter were still under Obama’s tenure, the Trump amnesty is likely close to 200,000 by now, when extrapolating in the number of presumed cards issued during April and May.

Thus, while Trump’s own lawful immigration order lies in ruins from tyrannical courts – with no effort to fight back through Congress – Obama’s patently unconstitutional DACA order remains in full force even after his presidency.

The jarring thing here is that Trump could fulfill a core campaign promise simply by refusing to renew existing DACA cards. We are not talking about a balanced budget or entitlement reform — just a simple display of inaction. Even Marco Rubio said the president should only decline to retroactively strip DACA, but should follow through with the promise not to renew the amnesty.

Granting work permits and Social Security cards to people who are here illegally is something even King George couldn’t do without British Parliament. A mere inaction could rectify this problem, yet Trump’s own DHS, led by Sec. John Kelly, is taking active steps to violate the Constitution. At this point, it has become Trump’s amnesty.

Keep in mind that the betrayal on Obama’s amnesty is in addition to the border wall being downright defunded and refugee resettlement being funded. Conservatives would be wise to raise Cain over this issue and stop making excuses.

At a committee hearing Wednesday, Sec. Kelly wouldn’t stop talking about “Dreamers” as if they are covered by a legitimate statute. He promised Democrats on Wednesday that he would not deport any “Dreamer” without a criminal record. This is lawless and, as I’ve noted before, very problematic for a number of reasons.

1. Welfare for illegals

Trump officials, and perhaps the president himself, don’t seem to understand what DACA is (much like some don’t understand what Obamacare actually is). That is why they are confused about repealing it.

Obama’s executive amnesty was not merely the suspension of deportations of certain classes of illegal aliens; it offered them benefits and affirmative legal status, with Social Security cards, work permits, and thousands of dollars in refundable tax credit welfare payments. In fact, well over 500,000 illegals had received Social Security cards by 2014 (more likely to be 800,000 by now).

According to a Congressional Research Service memo, illegal families could receive as much as $35,000 in retroactive EITC benefits the first year after being approved for Obama’s executive amnesty. This was all done without an act of Congress. Thus, to say we are not going to focus on deporting DACA recipients is a non-sequitur to the main problem of granting them affirmative benefits.

Even if we don’t deport large numbers of them, we should certainly not give them American benefits. Moreover, these funds could be used to build the wall.

2. Discretion vs. amnesty

There is one thing to use discretion to prioritize some enforcement actions over others; that is what every federal and state law enforcement agency does on a daily basis. It is quite another dynamic to actually publicly make a policy of de facto amnesty and legitimize and codify the supposed right of illegal immigrants to remain in the country contrary to our sovereignty laws.

Saying we are only focusing on criminal aliens is essentially Obama’s stated (albeit false) messaging.

3. “Dream” amnesty serves as a magnet

Agreeing to the false notion that children of illegal aliens have a right to demand legal status and that poor decisions of their parents and host countries are the fault of American taxpayers and workers runs contrary to everything Trump said during the campaign.

Furthermore, it encourages future waves of immigration at a time when Central Americans understand that once they come here with children, they are essentially here to stay. Trump promised to get rid of unqualified birthright citizenship for those born here to illegal immigrant parents. How could he then grant amnesty to those born in foreign countries?

And while Trump’s campaign rhetoric is still scaring off illegal aliens, thus resulting in an encouraging slowdown of border crossings, how long will that last once word gets out that he’s a paper tiger?

4. A king or a president?

Irrespective of one’s policy views on immigration, maintaining Obama’s illegal amnesty shreds our sovereignty and Constitution, and sets a terrible precedent. The executive amnesty was perhaps Obama’s most egregious act of imperialism, because it undermined the very foundation of our sovereignty.

In fact, giving rights to aliens is the quintessential example Alexander Hamilton used to contrast a president from a king. “[T]he one [a president] can confer no privileges whatever; the other [a king] can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies,” wrote Hamilton in Federalist No. 69.

There is no greater act of imperialism than for a president to unilaterally nullify our sovereignty and violate immigration statutes.

5. Trump hurting Arizona and states that want the rule of law

As we noted in February, the same courts that are engaging in civil disobedience and nullifying Trump’s common sense lawful immigration guidance are also demanding that Arizona offer driver’s licenses to recipients of Obama’s amnesty. They are treating Obama’s amnesty as a legitimate statute through which to force states to grant benefits to illegals.

During Trump’s hallmark Phoenix speech on immigration, he said the Grand Canyon State had a “very special place” in his heart. With the courts destroying state and national sovereignty, doesn’t he want to do his part to help Arizona — and certainly not burden them legally and politically with amnesty?

“Obama immigration order alive, Trump order dead” is not exactly the slogan we want Democrats chanting in 2018, but that is the end game unless the president acts immediately.

To quote candidate Trump, “we either have a country or we don’t have a country.”

The coming days will be very telling for many fervent Trump supporters whether this was about a cause or about flesh and blood. (For more from the author of “The Real Scandal? Trump Grants Amnesty to 125,000 Illegals in 3 Months” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Operation Temperer – U.K. Will Likely Institute Martial Law Measures Within a Year

After the Manchester suicide bombing only two weeks ago I warned my readers that the repetition of terror attacks is breeding complacency within the public, in Europe most acutely. It is not uncommon now for attacks killing dozens to be forgotten within a week of the event. The news feeds are awash in distraction and, of course, sometimes these events themselves act as distractions.

In a recent newscast of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, BBC anchor Katty Kay stated:

Europe is getting used to attacks like this, Mika. They have to, because we are never going to be able to totally wipe this out…

To me, this attitude is rather indicative of the European victim-culture mindset. Many in Europe (not all, but many) seem to enjoy a steady routine of self-flagellation. Countless centuries of the feudal serf system will do that to a society. The British still pay taxes to maintain a royal family, after all. I also think that the results of the Brexit vote in the UK might mislead those of us in America into thinking that the British are turning over a new leaf in terms of liberty and conservative-like values. While I do think there is a fierce underlying drive to protect sovereignty of the British nation, the British individual has all but abandoned any hope of their own personal sovereignty and self-determination.

In mainland Europe the self-loathing natural born citizen has become a bit of a mainstay and has been exploited quite successfully by the globalist establishment. In particular, the great fear among predominantly liberal Europeans is a return to the nationalist fervor that they believe spawned the rise of Nazism and the Third Reich (I have written numerous articles outlining the involvement of the corporate and banking elite in funding and supplying vital technology to the Nazis before and during WWII). It is this “guilt” of association with the Nazi legacy that has left Europe vulnerable to manipulation from the other end of the political spectrum – the socialist/Marxist end.

It is also this mindset that allowed globalists to forcefully inject millions of Muslim immigrants through open border policies and refugee policies into EU nations without proper vetting procedures. The majority of Europeans that saw the policy as irrational and dangerous were afraid to say anything for fear that they would be labeled “fascists.”

The greatest threat is not only the conditioning of the population to accept cultural invasion without assimilation. Nor is the greatest threat the pacification of the populace in the face of rampant terror attacks. No, the pinnacle threat is what will inevitably come next – the apathy of a nation in the wake of incremental martial law and the death of personal liberty.

This past week, a team of three Muslim men struck pedestrians with a white van, then emerged wielding hunting knives in a rampage through a crowded London night spot. This is only one attack in a steady stream that has plagued Europe ever since the Cloward-Piven program of Muslim relocation allowed millions of “refugees” into the EU’s borders. The vaporous ISIS terror group has since claimed responsibility.

In response, Prime Minister Theresa May has declared “enough is enough,” and demanded a review of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy. London police have been asked to adjust to new tactical conditions, patrolling streets heavily armed and utilizing surveillance helicopters with the aid of special forces units.

NOTE – After finishing this article on Sunday, I find this quote from Theresa May on Tuesday:

We should do even more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.

And if human rights laws get in the way of doing these things, we will change those laws to make sure we can do them…

The deployment of over 5000 British troops at strategic locations by Theresa May is all part of a plan established in 2015 called “Operation Temperer.” The plan calls for the deployment of troops within the UK border in response to “major terrorist threats.” Essentially, it is a martial law program that acts incrementally, rather than overtly. Once implemented, Temperer would be difficult to reverse. As UK military chiefs warned when the operation was publicly exposed, troops would likely not be pulled back after commitment unless the terror threat was “reduced,” leaving the definition of the “threat level” open for rather broad interpretation.

Operation Temperer is now in full swing as police departments ask for military aid. The prime minister has obliged, replacing officers in numerous locations with military units on patrol. So, is this “martial law?” Perhaps not quite, but it is damn close to the line, and this is how tyranny is commonly implemented; not all at once, but a stepping stone at a time.

First, I would point out that May introduced Temperer measures after the Manchester bombing, and they do not seem to have done much to disrupt the latest attack in London. Second, I would also point out that the UK general elections for parliament are only a few days away, and it is highly likely that the latest attacks will solidify Theresa May and her Brexit base. The timing is rather interesting….

Many in the Liberty Movement would say that this is a good thing; that finally the British will be able to reverse the forced cultural invasion of an incompatible Muslim mass. I would say that this is all part of the plan.

As I have argued since before the Brexit vote last year, we are witnessing perhaps the largest 4th Gen psy-op in history. The globalists have deliberately engineered conditions by which European nations in particular will either be enveloped by an alien ideology with no protection from their own governments, or they will have to respond with overarching countermeasures. Meaning, Europeans have been given a false choice between the ideological cult of multiculturalism, or, martial law conditions.

In my view, the UK has been slated for the latter measure, and this makes perfect sense if you understand the game plan of the globalists.

Brexit and by extension the rise of Donald Trump in the US has been ALLOWED to happen. Despite the delusions of some in the Liberty Movement, the so-called “deep state” is perfectly positioned to take advantage of both events. They are not opposed in the slightest. Why? Because this is about destroying the name of sovereign nationalism and conservative principles. This is about the long game.

The UK appears to be first in the line-up. Terror attacks are mounting, May has already initiated Operation Temperer, and the attacks have continued anyway. The solution they will present will be MORE militarization, not less. It is my prediction that after a year of incrementalism and continued attacks, the entire UK will be in the midst of what many would define as full-spectrum martial law. The UK government might not openly call it that, but that is what it will be.

While I personally find Muslim-based societies to be abhorrent in their attitude towards individual liberty, I do see a disturbing trend developing on the other side of the coin. Western nations like the UK and the US have every right to defend their borders, to deny immigration from ANYWHERE for any reason, and to deport illegal immigrants and immigrants with provable ties to terror groups. However, the line that should not be crossed but probably will be crossed is the persecution or deportation of people merely for holding particular ideological views.

Even if the majority of citizens don’t necessarily support an outright broad-brush response towards all people who hold Muslim views as potential terrorists, the temptation will be overwhelming, and our respective governments will oblige it. Once we step into the world of thought crime, there is no turning back.

And, what this does is paint conservative/nationalist movements as monstrous in the eyes of future generations. They will be taught that the globalists “warned the world” about the dangerous “racist” populists and alt-right groups, and look what happened when they came to power; they vaporized the economy (see my previous articles on the Trump scapegoat narrative) and rounded up innocent people because of their belief system even though they committed no specific crimes. My fear is that what is happening here is that conservative movements are going to be driven to such madness in the name of security that we will actually make the globalists look like “good guys” by comparison.

So, what is the solution? Well, look at the choices the British people have been given: Accept multicultural sublimation without question, or initiate complete military oversight and sacrifice personal liberty. Are there no other options available?

What about this: The UK citizenry DEMANDS the return of their right to self-defense and the legalization of firearms ownership for those without a criminal background? The real solution is for UK citizens to begin providing their own security, not handing over their country to militarization because they are all disarmed and afraid.

Will this happen? I seriously doubt it. But, I do want to point out that there is clearly another path far superior to the two being offered.

Again, I believe the UK will be under martial law in a year’s time. Unless the people of the UK do something NOW to assert their right to determine their own security, they will fall to a complete totalitarian framework. And, in the long run, they will only be helping the very globalists the Brexit movement in particular sought to fight against. They will do this by trampling the image of nationalism and sovereignty with the jackbooted philosophy of externalized security and government dependency, making globalism, the offered antithesis, look pleasant and tolerable in retrospect. (For more from the author of “Operation Temperer – U.K. Will Likely Institute Martial Law Measures Within a Year” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

CNN Creates Fake News Story, Stages Pro-Muslim Demonstration After London Terrorist Attack

Yesterday, a Londoner by the Twitter name @markantro filmed a CNN crew telling a group of Muslim women wearing head coverings on where to stand for a photoshoot. In the tweet, he claimed CNN was “Staging the event.”

Other critics have also accused them of staging the event. CNN called the claim “nonsense.” They said, “Police let demonstrators through the cordon to show their signs. CNN along with other media simply filmed them doing so.” The CNN report can be seen below.

The Protest

The “mum’s” group holds signs with messages like “ISIS will lose” and “ISIS = Enemies of Islam.” The crew has the women huddle into a tightly packed group to fit them all into camera coverage. At one point, someone steps forward to offer assistance to one or more of the women.

Next, white police officers securing the area are seen leaving as dark-skinned officers take their place. When everything is set, CNN’s Abu Dhabi Managing Editor Becky Anderson begins filming a report. She gushes over them, describing it as “a wonderful scene” and “poignant.” She raves, “Look at all the people around me here, behind me here, sad about last night but hopeful for tomorrow.”

The Inquisitr reports, “Fox News, BBC, CNN, and The Guardian have all allegedly used either images or video footage of these same Muslims carrying the same signs in various parts of London.”

An AP photo appears to capture the same group standing somewhere else. A man from the first group with green around his neck is also in the AP photo.

The Daily Mail‘s Katie Hopkins tweeted out more photos of the group posing in other locations. She observes that a woman wearing pink pants can be seen in multiple photos.

CNN’s actual report.

(For more from the author of “CNN Creates Fake News Story, Stages Pro-Muslim Demonstration After London Terrorist Attack” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

In Canada, Big Brother Is Ready to Raid Your Home and Steal Your Child

We have not been crying wolf. We have not been exaggerating the danger. The unthinkable is now reality in Canada. And it could be coming to America next.

We Were Warned

In 2012, headlines announced, “Homeschooling families can’t teach homosexual acts sinful in class, says Alberta government.”

As the article explained, “Under Alberta’s new Education Act, homeschoolers and faith-based schools will not be permitted to teach that homosexual acts are sinful as part of their academic program, says the spokesperson for Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk.”

So, in the privacy of your own home, as you teach and instruct your own children, you would be forbidden by law to teach them what the Bible said about homosexual practice. And how, pray tell, was the government planning to monitor this?

In 2015, Dawn Stefanowicz, herself the child of a gay father who died of AIDS, raised her voice as well. The headline to her article read, “A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights.”

She wrote:

I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.

In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

Canadians Could Lose Their Children

She was not exaggerating. In fact, she may have understated her case. The latest headlines from Canada announce something even more Orwellian: “Canada’s New Law Lets Government Take Children Away If Parents Don’t Accept Their Gender Identity.”

What exactly does this mean?

A Canadian province has passed a law that gives rights to the government to take away children from families that don’t accept their kid’s chosen “gender identity” or “gender expression”.

The Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act of 2017, also know as Bill 89, was passed in Ontario by a vote of 63 to 23, The Christian Times reported.

This is beyond mind-boggling. It might even be beyond Orwellian. Really now, would even Orwell have predicted that the government could seize your 8-year-old boy if you wouldn’t let him dress like a girl or if you refused to affirm his perceived female identity?

For good reason, Jack Fonseca, a political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition, slammed the new bill in no uncertain terms: “With the passage of Bill 89, we’ve entered an era of totalitarian power by the state, such as never witnessed before in Canada’s history. Make no mistake, Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption.”

And it is not just an era of totalitarian power. It is an era of misguided totalitarian power.

Not only is it saying that the government, not the parent, knows best. It is saying that the child, not the parent, knows best. It is saying that it is impossible that little Johnny is confused and that one day, he will outgrow his belief that he is really a girl.

No. If he’s convinced he’s a girl and his parents don’t affirm this, he could presumably tell his teachers at school, who would then report this to the government.

Soon enough, there’s a knock at your door, and government agents are taking your son — yes, your very own child — and putting him in a new environment where he can live as Jane.

As nightmarish as this scenario sounds, it is now the law. And it was passed with ease by a vote of 63 to 23.

Soon enough, Johnny will be taking hormone blockers to stop the onset of puberty, and before you know it, he’ll be a lovely young lady, sex-change surgery and all. And there’s nothing you can do to stop it. Nothing.

Don’t Hit Snooze

There’s a reason that so many of us have been raising our voices so loudly for so many years. It’s not because we hate gays or transgenders. It’s because we foresaw the disastrous consequences of LGBT activism and have been standing as watchmen on the wall, sounding the alarm. I urge you from the bottom of my heart: Please don’t hit the snooze button again.

And please don’t console yourself by saying, “Well, that’s Canada, not America.”

First, are the people of Canada unimportant? Does something matter only if it affects America? Surely you won’t say, “Who cares if Christian families in Canada have their children seized by the government? I’m OK here in America.”

Second, we’ve seen how LGBT activism has become the principle threat to our freedoms of speech, conscience and religion here in the States. Canada is just one step ahead.

Third, already in America, “A federal district court judge just dismissed a mother’s lawsuit, essentially upholding Minnesota’s very harmful and unconstitutional ‘emancipation statute’ that allows minor children — with the aid of outside groups — to leave their families whenever there is conflict, as long as the child is living independently and can support himself or herself.”

In the case at hand, the mother’s minor son had “decided to be treated with hormones in an effort to ‘change’ his biological sex and to change his name.” The mother opposed this, which was one of the reasons the child sought “emancipation.” Now, the government (here in America!) is helping to underwrite his “transition,” and there’s nothing his mother can do to prevent it.

Recently, the flagship gay publication The Advocate, celebrated an 8-year-old drag queen — meaning, a boy who identifies as a boy but who likes to dress up as a girl. (Interestingly, the boy lives in Canada.)

Yes, “Montreal’s newest drag superstar has the poise of someone four times his age.

“A new girl on the Montreal drag scene is making the city’s other queens look geriatric by comparison. That would be Lactatia — a.k.a. Nemis Quinn Mélançon Golden, an 8-year-old who started getting into drag at the ripe old age of 7.”

In this case, the boy’s parents are highly supportive of him (that’s bad enough). But if they weren’t supportive of him, since this is part of his gender expression, the government could remove him from his home.

This madness must be stopped. (For more from the author of “In Canada, Big Brother Is Ready to Raid Your Home and Steal Your Child” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

REALLY MSM!? It’s Not Terrorism If Trump Says So?

It’s not terrorism if Trump says so … Last night, NBC Nightly News reminded the American people – during an attack against our strongest ally – that Donald Trump is the real enemy. Trump tweeted about the jihadi attack in London, highlighting “fears of a new terror attack” before NBC could “independently confirm.” Note, the president didn’t say it WAS a terror attack – he said there were “fears of a new terror attack.” Instead of just not using Trump’s tweet in their coverage, they went out of their way to attack the president, saying, “Pres. Trump has used Twitter to share news report on London incident. We aren’t relaying president’s retweet, as the info is unconfirmed.” VIVA LA RESISTANCE!

A host on the Boston NBC station … A host (whose program I have been on) stood up for the network, saying it’s because they can’t trust, under their ethics, unconfirmed information from Donald Trump. Which is odd, because at last check, Brian Williams still worked for NBC News.

Media hate Trump’s solution … Donald Trump is the duly elected president of the United States, under the process outlined in the Constitution. As such, he is responsible for national security. Unsurprisingly, after yet another jihadi attack, Trump shared his solution for preventing them in the U.S.: the travel ban. That the two are related seems to be too much for Ben Jacobs, who covers U.S. politics for U.K.-based Guardian. Even more so for Jon Passantino, the deputy news director for BuzzFeed, who tweeted, “Trump immediately uses London tragedy for political purposes.” Or, you know, maybe just to outline his plan to combat radical Islamic jihad in the United States.


Main story is Trump, not jihad … Instead of focusing on the media’s blatant bias in the wake of the London jihad attack, CNN media “critic” Brian Stelter had Carl Bernstein on to discuss how they don’t like President Trump’s travel ban. Here watch.

MSNBC scared of overreaction … CRTV’s Steven Crowder highlighted some of the absurdity of the leftist media. Crowder shared video of MSNBC saying that we shouldn’t overreact to terror. Note on the chyron it also says a “van plowed into pedestrians.” Just like with guns, it’s the van that’s the real actor, not the person controlling the van.


It’s impossible for one person to highlight all of the media insanity when there’s a story like this. That’s why I rely on you to help me out. Let me know what you’ve seen by emailing me at [email protected].

(For more from the author of “REALLY MSM!? It’s Not Terrorism If Trump Says So?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.