Violence on Charlotte’s Streets Began With Chaos in Hearts, Homes — and, Yes, Bathrooms

/0 Comments/in , /by

North Carolina is a battleground today as it hasn’t been since 1864. It’s a crucial swing state in the upcoming presidential election, whose outcome in judicial appointments might determine the very meaning of the U.S. Constitution — including its First Amendment protections for political speech and religious freedom, and Second Amendment guarantee of the right to self-defense. The state’s brave, pro-family governor is fighting for reelection, targeted by multimillion-dollar gay activist foundations. The state itself is under boycott by massive corporations including the NBA, NCAA and Paypal over its resistance to transgender pressure.

And the streets of Charlotte offer scenes that look like they were filmed in Libya or Syria — places where the state has lost control over public violence, and factional warfare has erupted in the streets. Agitators from all over the country have been shipped in to stir the outrage after a possibly unjust police shooting of a black citizen. Instead of peaceful protests, however, what erupted was large-scale violence, including this chilling footage of rioters seemingly trying to burn a reporter alive:

The last time I heard of Charlotte in the news was when that city passed a transgender access law that would have denied any legal recognition to biological sex, granting men full access to women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, provided they whispered the secret password: “transgender.” The state’s legislature and governor swung into action, passing a state law overturning the local measure, and calling down on it the wrath of Bruce Springsteen, Barack Obama, and the rest of our country’s financial, political and cultural elite. And now Charlotte is ground zero for radical activists who want to start a race war.

Is that a coincidence? Some grim piece of irony? More than that, it’s a vital clue to the fragile chain of order in civilized society, and a warning that when we weaken its basic links, the whole thing can come crashing down in the most literal sense — in the form of burning cars, shattered storefronts, and policemen under siege by mobs of fanatics.

In his classic The Roots of American Order, Russell Kirk observes that harmony, order and freedom in society are not something imposed from outside by police or the national guard. Armed guards are the backstops, the last resort, which we call in for emergencies, when chaos is breaking out.

Those great good things make up the social peace that St. Paul, and all Christians since him, have prayed for in their time. They emerge from a much more intimate source than government agents with guns. They flow from the human heart and well-ordered minds, then play out in everyday life, especially in the home. That same order radiates organically through society, as honest people interact with each other, compete fairly, cooperate for mutual benefit, and when need be sacrifice their personal interests for the sake of the greater good. Fallen though we are, people can live together fruitfully when they agree on basic, truthful premises about good and evil, man and woman, justice and freedom — even if they differ on points of philosophy or theology.

What happens when that consensus breaks down? When the rules are constantly changing, perpetually under self-righteous attack, and as a result large swathes of the population learn that they don’t have to play by them? Picture trying to hold something as simple as a football game, if the referees had markedly different rule books and were subject to bribery; if each team felt free to doctor the ball; and players were stashing brass knuckles or knives inside their uniforms. Go further, and imagine that each team’s fans were so fanatical that they would cheer, not jeer, each time their own team cheated.

Charlotte: Ground Zero of the Bathroom War and Maybe a Race War

Welcome to Charlotte, North Carolina, a place where the many fault-lines of postmodern life apparently intersected, and the ground simply gave way under citizens’ feet. Below I will list the basic ground rules that used to govern American life, which virtually everyone held in common until 1968 or so.

Men and women are equally important, but crucially different. Their biology both dictates and reflects these profound differences.

Sex is meant for marriage, and marriage is meant for children, who deserve a full set of parents.

Citizens must support themselves and their children, and not rely on the government except for short periods during emergencies.

Men must support the children whom they father, and women should withhold sex from men who haven’t proven their ability and willingness to do that.

Men must help to rear and discipline their sons, and protect their daughters.

Clearly these aren’t truths peculiar to America, or the West. They are not even distinctively Christian, though the church has embraced them as part of the “natural law” written on the human heart by God, which even pagans can usually discern, in the dim light of fallen reason. These are simply the rules of human life by which virtually every society we know of has lived — with certain short-lived, decadent exceptions.

They are also truths that are now literally unspeakable — by which I mean that security guards will come and stop you from speaking them — on our country’s college campuses.

That’s because each of those rules has been attacked by our own elites in the past 40 or 50 years, as a barrier to self-expression, pleasure or absolute autonomy — the kinds of goals that spoiled members of leisure classes start to insist on, when they take too much for granted that there will always be food in the restaurants, clean water flowing through the tap and order in the streets.

In fact, well-protected property rights, a functioning economy, abundant food, potable water and civil peace are not the natural state of mankind, as the fragile snowflakes who preen and fret on our college campuses have been taught by their fools of professors to believe. (I wonder how many Ivy Leaguers by now believe that Mt. Rushmore is a natural formation.) These crucial goods are carefully crafted artifacts, the result of hundreds of years of political struggle, hard work, technical competence, careful reflection and compromise. They demand our cooperation, our consent and sometimes our willingness to sacrifice the next whim that flickers through our libido, for the sake of some greater good — such as the life of an unborn child, a woman’s self-respect or the property rights of a neighbor.

In the 1960s a New Left desperate to wreck the social order in free market countries — which were clearly out-competing the socialist hellholes that had taken Marx at his word — latched onto the destructive power of short-sighted selfishness. That movement offered elite approval to sexual hedonism and drug abuse as “revolutionary acts,” and set about undermining support in our laws and in our mores for those fundamental truths listed above. And now we are seeing this program of cultural terrorism achieve its desired outcome:

Young men born out of wedlock, raised by their mothers on government largesse, whose communities are as a result hotbeds of violent crime where police are afraid to patrol and sometimes overreact (with tragic outcomes) are destroying the businesses and homes in their own neighborhoods. Meanwhile national elites bully the hard-pressed local government with threats of crippling economic sanctions if it will not destroy the privacy of women and deny biology, allegedly in service to a tiny group of mentally ill people, who are backed by a wealthy splinter group, the homosexual lobby, that speaks for some two percent of Americans.

No, what’s happening in Charlotte isn’t an accident. It’s a postcard from the future. If Hillary Clinton is elected, that future will come sooner, and with mathematical certainty. (For more from the author of “Violence on Charlotte’s Streets Began With Chaos in Hearts, Homes — and, Yes, Bathrooms” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

When Does Debating End and the Work Begin?

/0 Comments/in , /by

The crowd was standing and booing loud and long. The worried Secret Service hustled the speaker’s wife out of the arena as the tension and decibel level increased. The senator got off the stage.

A few weeks ago, Ted Cruz attempted a victory lap in the Republican National Convention after losing the primary fight. Cruz had refused to endorse the decision of the organization. I was sitting with a former Ohio Congressman who said, “He just ended his political life…” Commentator Charles Krauthammer said Cruz’s speech, “Was the Longest Suicide Note in US Political History.”

There are times to debate. There are times to work. Cruz didn’t know the difference. Unfortunately, most in business don’t either.

But Cruz has, in the end, taken the right action.

No Yes-Men

Your subordinates are pushing back. This is what you want — you didn’t hire yes-persons who polish apples and kiss your backside. You need a real debate to get the best recommendation to help you make the best decision. A heated discussion is needed around the conference table; the refining fire of dispute to burn away dross and all that.

The best bosses demand vigorous deliberation to vet a course of action. No unthinking rubber-stampers are on your team, right?

But sometimes the push-back pushes the manager over the edge. When is too much debate simply too much? And does the staffer understand when to stop debate and start executing?

The manager and staffers should know as a matter of policy when the debate turns from a dialogue of equals to the hierarchy of superior and subordinate.

The deliberation is over when the manager has made the decision. Or when a nominee is picked and the work pivots from Primary Debate to General Election. The political decision was made, but some who lost the debate want the argument to continue as Ted Cruz demonstrated at the GOP Convention in Cleveland.

Here, in business, the subordinate can help manage the manager. The alert staffer can clear the fog of decision-making by asking the manager a direct question, “Is the debate over and is there a ruling?” If the answer is yes and the decision has been made, then the arguing and arm-wrestling is over, and then the execution begins. A gavel pounded on a lectern is helpful.

Talented managers make decisions and are, well, decisive. There should be no doubt further down the org chart that the talking is done and action is to begin.

(In)Decision

However, if the staff does not know that the decision has (really!) been made, then confusion sets in. The push-back and the pleading will continue, followed by the whining.

We have an example of where even the Creator of the Universe was reconsidering a decision. Abraham, a good man, is arguing with God against destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten [righteous] can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.” (Genesis 18:32)

Those ten could not be found and the decision of God’s wrath was about to be carried out. So Abraham, you better get out.

Managers must make clear the bright line that divides debate from decision. When the boss has signaled that the line has been crossed and the decision has been made, then the debating and second-guessing is over.

After the debating is over and the decision made, the professional will support the manager even if he disagrees. The pro will get the job done as if the decision were his own.

This is where Ted Cruz missed his moment: He did not say ‘yes.’ Instead of supporting the verdict of the organization and its common goals, he did not immediately endorse the candidate of his party. We each have the option of saying ‘no’ to an organizational decision. But—

When the boss decides, then do the work. Or leave the organization.

Ted Cruz now understands that his party’s debate is over and that the decision has been made.

The planning and organizing are complete. Leading the execution is about to begin. (For more from the author of “When Does Debating End and the Work Begin?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Just Vetoed a Bill That Would Allow 9/11 Families to Pursue Justice

/0 Comments/in , /by

Friday, President Obama vetoed legislation — the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act — allowing 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers of the September 11 terror attacks were from Saudi Arabia, and it has long been suspected that people in the Saudi government helped finance those terrorists. The release this summer of the previously-classified 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry report into the 9/11 attacks renewed focus on both the events and victims of the terrorist acts.

The Senate unanimously passed the legislation that would allow the 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts earlier this year. On Sept. 9, two days before the 15th anniversary of 9/11, the House of Representatives unanimously passed the legislation.

“I recognize that there is nothing that could ever erase the grief the 9/11 families have endured,” Obama wrote in his veto message, reports Jordan Fabian and The Hill. “Enacting JASTA into law, however would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks.”

Signs are good that Obama’s veto will be overridden, which would be the first time Congress has overridden a veto during Obama’s presidency. As Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. (F, 2%) told The Hill earlier this month, “I think we easily get the two-thirds override if the president should veto.” (For more from the author of “Obama Just Vetoed a Bill That Would Allow 9/11 Families to Pursue Justice” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Legal or Not, Obama Wants to Bring Gitmo Detainees to the US

/0 Comments/in , /by

Despite the fact it’s illegal, further proof that the Obama administration is not opposed to moving inmates from Guantanamo Bay’s military detention facility to U.S. soil was confirmed this week.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt disclosed the Pentagon spent federal dollars to scope out Fort Leavenworth — where the Department of Defense’s only maximum security prison is located — as a potential site to house former Gitmo detainees,” the Topeka-Capital Journal’s Justin Wingerter reports.

“As time runs out for the Obama administration to make good on its promise to close Guantanamo, this document raises new concerns for those who object to bringing detainees to the U.S. mainland,” Schmidt said after his office discovered the Pentagon’s actions through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Schmidt’s office underwent a 10-month battle with the DOD over the FOIA request.

However, bringing Gitmo inmates to the U.S. is illegal and prohibited by federal law. Additionally, multiple members in Congress have emphasized it will continue to remain illegal.

“After seven years, President Obama has yet to convince the American people that moving Guantanamo terrorists to our homeland is smart or safe. And he doesn’t seem interested in continuing to try,” Speaker of the House Paul Ryan R-Wis., (F, 53%) said in a statement in February after Obama confirmed his intentions to close the facility in Cuba.

“His proposal fails to provide critical details required by law, including the exact cost and location of an alternate detention facility. Congress has left no room for confusion. It is against the law — and it will stay against the law — to transfer terrorist detainees to American soil. We will not jeopardize our national security over a campaign promise.”

Questions regarding the transference of remaining Guantanamo detainees have been rekindled. Just this month, Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C. (A, 96%), reintroduced a proposal halting detainees to be transferred to U.S. soil. This resolution was first introduced in February and is now gaining support from 50 Republican House members.

Similar to Kansas residents near Fort Leavenworth, the issue is relevant for Duncan and his district, since another potential U.S. site for the detainees is the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C.

“No state should be a terrorist dumping ground. I know the people of South Carolina are vehemently opposed to this plan,” Duncan said in a statement. “If brought to a city like Charleston, the community would immediately become a high priority terrorist target where millions of tourists travel every year to visit. In fact, any community forced illegal to house these notorious terrorists would be at risk.”

Currently, there are 61 detainees remaining at the Gitmo facility; Obama said earlier this month 20 of those are approved for transfer.

It’s important to note 66 percent of Americans are opposed to closing the facility, according to a Gallup poll from June.

Americans are concerned about former terrorists on the loose, and Obama should be, too. (For more from the author of “Legal or Not, Obama Wants to Bring Gitmo Detainees to the US” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A GOP Congress Should Not Give Planned Parenthood Another Dime of Taxpayer Money

/0 Comments/in , /by

Planned Parenthood has once again proven it does two things exceedingly well—ending innocent human lives in the womb for a fee, and getting American taxpayers to subsidize its operations.

How else to explain Congress making America’s No. 1 abortion provider eligible for new funding when it already gets over a half-billion dollars (yes, billion) in taxpayer money per year?

The House version of the continuing resolution, a short-term government spending measure, provided $95 million in health care funds to address the Zika emergency. But it effectively limited grant recipients to Medicaid providers in Florida and Puerto Rico.

This meant that Planned Parenthood clinics in Florida would have been guaranteed funding, but its Puerto Rico partner, Profamilia, would not because it did not qualify under Medicaid rules.

This was unacceptable to congressional Democrats who threatened a shutdown fight over this one abortion provider that runs six clinics. The subsequent Senate version of the continuing resolution dropped the Medicaid requirement and allows Profamilia access to Zika funds, but seems to leave the question of who ultimately gets funding in the hands of Florida and Puerto Rico health authorities.

Because Florida cut off Planned Parenthood funding under Medicaid this year (only to be overturned by a liberal judge), there is at least some hope that it will direct all Zika funds to life-affirming health centers instead of abortion clinics.

But Puerto Rico? The place that once boasted of the highest female sterilization rate in the world because of the coercive teamwork between Planned Parenthood and the Puerto Rican government? We already know Planned Parenthood and its allies are willing to hold emergency Zika funding hostage over a handful of clinics, so it would be the height of naïveté to think that the master of working the system would not find a way to get its typical cut of the money if given the chance.

Instead of allowing Planned Parenthood access to new federal funding streams, Congress should be closing the spigot entirely. For example, when videos of alleged corruption and illegal voter fraud surfaced around the notorious left-wing group known as ACORN, Congress promptly defunded it. The same logic applies to Planned Parenthood, especially after undercover videos raised serious questions over whether its affiliates were illegally profiting from selling organs of unborn babies.

Thankfully, we still have landmark laws like the Hyde Amendment that prevent direct taxpayer funding of abortion. But while Planned Parenthood fights for Hyde’s repeal, it has used every trick in the book to get federal money by trying to pretend that its core business is anything but industrial-scale abortion.

Congress should not make Planned Parenthood eligible for a raise. Rather, it should bar Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from health care funding up front and redirect it to more comprehensive and life-affirming health care providers. Such a move would reflect the simple fact the Planned Parenthood has long since disqualified itself from taxpayer money because of its callous disregard for innocent human life. (For more from the author of “A GOP Congress Should Not Give Planned Parenthood Another Dime of Taxpayer Money” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How to Use Presidential Debate to Talk About Conservatism

/0 Comments/in , /by

With an estimated 100 million people tuning in to watch Monday night’s presidential debate, the topic of conversation for the week will be the showdown between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, therefore giving you ample opportunity to talk conservative policy.

But you’ll have to be diligent in this endeavor as the memorable moments in presidential debates are rarely about policy:

1. Ronald Reagan disarmed Walter Mondale in a 1984 debate, saying, “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” The punchline not only made the audience laugh, but Mondale genuinely cracked up too.

2. In 1988, Michael Dukakis lacked every emotion when asked if he would favor the death penalty if his wife were raped and murdered. He responded without mentioning his, uh, wife: “No, I don’t … I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don’t see any evidence that it’s a deterrent and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime.”

3. Most remember that Al Gore repeatedly sighed as George W. Bush spoke during a 2000 debate. “But the best moment might have been when Gore at one point stood up, seemingly to intimidate Bush, and Bush simply nodded hello at him and continued what he was saying,” writes Time’s Dan Mitchell.

These moments are brought to you by an “uh-oh,” or a laugh, or a great sound bite, not policy. But we promise the ensuing chatter around these moments and the superficial aspects highlighted by the media allows you to pivot to a substantive conversation.

Here are three ways to focus your otherwise shallow conversation on conservative policy.

Common Ground

While we want to be entertained during the 90-minute debate (no risk of being slighted this year), you want to move past the performance and instead discuss policy. Acknowledge the moments the media will obsess over, but then pivot to the candidates’ policies on your political issue of choice.

For example, if a candidate makes an exaggerated claim about income inequality that the media just can’t stop talking about, acknowledge the claim as absurd and then pivot to policy. Use common identifiers like “we both know his/her statement was absurd, but the policy behind it needs to be addressed. We can both agree that…” You recognize the absurdity of the claim (common ground) and then refocus the conversation on the substance behind the claim.

Examples

Use what the candidates say. Even if we witness in-depth policy discussions Monday night, you may disagree with the style and substance. Play off the candidates’ comments to give tangible examples. If the person you’re talking to cares about guns, or health care, or income inequality, refer back to the columns we’ve written about how to have conversations about those topics.

Remember, you win by using an example, personal anecdote, or analogy that frames the policy in a relatable way. And adding in a simple data point along with an example is always a great way to prove you’re right … because numbers, like hips, don’t lie.

Words

NEWS FLASH: Beating someone over the head with your perspective is not persuasive. You gain no ground by talking (or yelling) at someone. They will shut down and likely never want to discuss politics with you again. We know the debate will be heated Monday, but don’t let that tension influence your conversation.

A great way to resist the temptation to yell/kick/scream your way to winning is to use the right words. Talk about “choice,” what’s “fair,” “rights,” and “equality.” It’s been said many times before, but steal the words and phrases used to great effect by liberals. Doing so is disarming, but more importantly, those words accurately describe your conservative policy position too.

While fireworks are expected, remember that what the candidates do on stage won’t be worth mimicking in real life, especially if you want to persuade. Instead, find common ground, use examples, and say the right words. (For more from the author of “How to Use Presidential Debate to Talk About Conservatism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congress Has Little to Show for Its Work This Year

/0 Comments/in , /by

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are in a hurry to get out of town so they can hit the campaign trail and convince voters to send them back to Washington. But, considering they’ve pushed off most of the big decisions until after the election, their list of accomplishments this year is a very short one. Maybe they think voters won’t notice.

(For more from the author of “Congress Has Little to Show for Its Work This Year” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

THE OBAMA POST-RACIAL PRESIDENCY: 8 Stunning Facts Regarding the Conflagration in Charlotte

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Spotted at Ginny Meerman-Lee’s place:

1. There’s a Black President
2. There’s a Black Congressman
3. There’s a Black Mayor
4. There’s a Black District Attorney
5. There’s a Black Chief of Police
6. The officer involved in the shooting was Black
7. The victim perp was Black

So whose fault is it when the perp gets taken out?

Oh, that’s right. The era of racial healing instigated by Barack Hussein Soetero Dunham Obama is truly remarkable.

Fundamentally transformed, alright. (For more from the author of “THE OBAMA POST-RACIAL PRESIDENCY: 8 Stunning Facts Regarding the Conflagration in Charlotte” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Clinton Not Doing Much Laughing After Appearing on Comedy Show

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton may be second-guessing her decision to appear on the popular online comedy show Funny or Die.

In an effort to increase her support among milennial voters, Clinton was interviewed by actor and comedian Zach Galifianakis in a segment called, “Between Two Ferns.”

Galifianakis began the interview by saying, “Critics have questioned some of your decision making recently and by you doing this show I hope it finally lays that to rest.”

Clinton responded, “Oh, I think it absolutely proves their case. Don’t you?”

The comedian went on to ask if she was excited to be the first “girl” president.

“Well, I mean being president would be such an extraordinary honor, and responsibility, but being the first woman elected president… That’s pretty special.”

At one point the discussion turned to Clinton’s opponent Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Galifianakis asked if she ever looked at how well racism worked for Trump and thought, “Oh, maybe I should be more racist.”

Clinton responds by shaking her head.

When asked if she would leave the country if Trump becomes president, Clinton remarked she would remain in the U.S. and try to prevent him from destroying the country.

The host asked if she would lead the “civil war,” to which Clinton replied, “No, I wouldn’t take up arms. I think that might be a little extreme.”

“Oh right, because you were saying before we were rolling that you wanted to take away everyone’s guns,” remarked Galifianakis.

That was when Clinton said, “I really regret doing this.”

He also poked fun at Clinton’s wardrobe by saying, “I’d love to meet the person who makes your pantsuits because for Halloween I want to go as a librarian from outer space.”

Galifianakis stopped the interview for a word from a sponsor, which turned out to be a Trump campaign ad.

After asking a few more questions, Galifianakis said, “Well, this has been a lot of fun Mrs. Clinton. We should stay in touch. What’s the best way to reach you? Email?” (For more from the author of “Hillary Clinton Not Doing Much Laughing After Appearing on Comedy Show” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

State Admits: Islamic State Terrorists Trying to Pose as Refugees

/0 Comments/in , /by

State Department spokesman John Kirby acknowledged Wednesday that Islamic State terrorists are trying to mingle with refugee populations overseas in the hopes of making it to the U.S. posing as a refugee.

“I wouldn’t debate the fact that there’s the potential for ISIS terrorists to try to insert themselves, and we see that in some of the refugee camps in Jordan and in Turkey, where they try to insert themselves into the population,” Kirby said on “Fox and Friends.”

Still, he argued that the vetting process for these refugees is tough, and should be enough to keep terrorists out, although he admitted it’s not a perfect process.

“The vetting process, while not perfect, is a very, very stringent, and it can take almost up to two years for a single refugee to make it into the country,” he said.

He said in the same interview: “Is it perfect? Can it be perfect? Can it be foolproof? Well, probably not, no.” (Read more from “State Admits: Islamic State Terrorists Trying to Pose as Refugees” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.