Islamists Just Sawed off a Jew’s Finger. That’s Not Enough Bloodshed for the ‘Tolerant’ Left.

/0 Comments/in , , /by

All these churches working their hearts out for “the religious liberty right” to import Shariah immigration — instead of fighting for religious conscience rights at home for Christians — ought to pay attention to what’s going on in Europe.

The issue of mass Islamic immigration to western countries has become the Waterloo of political correctness that has plagued western democracies in recent decades. That is because under the guise of “tolerance,” they have tolerated the intolerant, importing large numbers of individuals whose value system is irreconcilably against western enlightened values.

When liberals lecture us on the need to bring in record numbers of migrants from the Middle East under the guise of tolerance and compassion, they never discuss the results of such policies that are so vividly on display across the pond in Europe.

It is well known that Jews cannot live safely in many parts of Europe thanks to the suicidal immigration policies they have pursued over the past 50 years; policies, by the way, we have mimicked in recent years, placing us just one generation behind the tipping point they are experiencing today. Just to get a flavor of what has become so commonplace in Europe (that it is no longer newsworthy), here is a story of the most recent attack on Jews in France:

The kippah-wearing brothers, whose father is a Jewish leader in Bondy, were forced off the main road by another vehicle on to a side street, according to the BNVCA report. While the vehicle was in motion, the driver and a passenger shouted anti-Semitic slogans at the brothers that included “Dirty Jews, You’re going to die!” the father told BNVCA based on the complaint filed by his sons.

The vehicle forced the brothers to stop their car, and they were surrounded by several men whom they described as having a Middle Eastern appearance. The men came out of a hookah café on to the side street, according to the case report published by the news website JSSNews.

The alleged attackers surrounded the brothers, then kicked and punched them repeatedly while threatening that they would be murdered if they moved. One of the alleged attackers then sawed off the finger of one of the brothers.

This particularly gruesome incident is not an aberration. Jews need armed guards at all their major institutions, reminiscent of what Israel had to do for years during the intifada. The chief rabbi of Belgium said last year there is no future for Jews in Europe. It is actually safer for Jews living in Judea and Samaria near Middle Eastern Arabs than those living in parts of Europe because European countries don’t have a security apparatus to deal with suicidal immigration policies into western countries.

Anti-Semitism is on the rise everywhere in the world commensurate with the rise of Islam in western countries and the prominence of Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups operating on campus and in other areas of society. Liberals, including Hillary Clinton, are suddenly discovering the growing anti-Semitism, but they are obfuscating the root cause of it and trying to pin it somehow on the few weeks since Trump assumed office.

Liberals refuse to recognize the common sense that our founders understood when they were so careful to bring in only individuals who championed our “republican values,” as Jefferson wrote in his essay on immigration in the “Notes on the State of Virginia.” Yet liberals are now importing the values of the Middle East.

According to Pew, most individuals in predominantly Muslim countries harbor virulent hatred for Jews. Obviously, if we bring in small numbers from these countries, it’s possible to assimilate some of them, but when admitted in such large quantities, we are invariably importing the values of the Middle East.

It’s amazing watching both liberals and pseudo-conservatives espouse a view on immigration completely divorced from our history and founding. It’s as if there is a default right for anyone to come here unless we can demonstrate up front that the individual is a known terrorist. The reality is that most of these attacks in Europe come from radicalized Shariah Muslims that either immigrated from North Africa or are children of immigrants that, at the time they came in, there was no way to “vet” their behavior aside from looking at their values system.

Why should we let in anyone with values antithetical to our universal values of enlightenment and true tolerance? While many of them won’t necessarily commit terror attacks, their cumulative growth in numbers cultivates the climate for those who do. Moreover, many of them grow up hating Americans and hating our values. Leo Hohman did a terrific job chronicling the cultural problems and the sexual harassment emanating from members of the Minneapolis Somali community in his new book, “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and the Resettlement Jihad” (Listen to my podcast interview with him here.)

To be clear, everyone who is in America has a right to be hateful and harbor a supremacist mindset as long as they don’t break the law. But there is no right to immigrate. The same way we should be careful about bringing in large numbers of immigrants from hypothetical parts of the world that are saturated — albeit not exclusively populated — with white supremacists. Shouldn’t the same apply for Islamic supremacists who are at war with our entire culture and pose a greater security threat than any other hateful ideology?

Amazingly, liberals have the nerve to compare not importing Shariah values to countries that refused to admit Jews in before the Holocaust. Well, maybe they should look at what’s going on in Europe, and they will understand that it is more analogous to not letting in the Nazis. Scandalously, these same liberals are the ones who want Israel to commit suicide, thereby eliminating the one safe harbor for European Jews fleeing anti-Semitism … thanks to their suicidal immigration policies in the West!

During the debate in the House of Representatives over the Naturalization Act of 1790, Theodore Sedgwick explained that Congress was handed the keys to immigration so that it would use discretion to “admit none but reputable citizens, such only were fit for the society into which they were blended.”

Madison expressed his desire to bring in only those who would be “a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.” This was a point he made 26 years earlier at the Constitutional Convention when he declared we should only admit “foreigners of merit & republican principles among us” in order “to maintain the character of liberality which had been professed in all the Constitutions & publications of America.”

And remember, their concerns about undesirable immigration was about Europe, not the Islamic world. They could never have envisioned the self-immolation of today’s “leaders.” They are rolling over in their graves. (For more from the author of “Islamists Just Sawed off a Jew’s Finger. That’s Not Enough Bloodshed for the ‘Tolerant’ Left.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

DNC Transgender Spox Turns Into Stuttering Mess When Tucker Asks About Science

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

A transgender advocate struggled to answer simple questions about the science of gender identity in a discussion about former President Obama’s transgender bathroom decree Thursday on Tucker Carlson Tonight.

“Let’s move from the politics to the science,” Carlson said to Zac Petkanas, Democratic National Committee senior advisor, launching into a series of questions about the implications of allowing people to determine their sex.

“There’s no biological anchor to sex anymore. It’s all determined by the individual,” he said. “So my obvious question for you is, how do I know if a person’s male or female? Is there some absolute standard people have to meet to be male or female, other than what they say?”

“One’s gender identity is enough to show what gender they are,” Petkanas replied.

“There are massive implications of this that everyone is either too dumb or too embarrassed to explore, but let’s do so now,” Carlson added. “If your sex is what you say it is, then what prevents me from playing on a women’s field hockey team? What prevents me from getting convicted of a felony and demanding to go to a women’s prison? It’s a real question.” (Read more from “DNC Transgender Spox Turns Into Stuttering Mess When Tucker Asks About Science” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lethal Judiciary: California Cop Killed by Known Criminal Released by Activist Supreme Court

/0 Comments/in , /by

Over the past few weeks, we have chronicled how the courts have bastardized fundamental rights, inverted state and federal powers, redefined marriage and sexuality, and erased our national sovereignty.

One of the old pastimes of the courts has been to interfere with state or federal criminal justice procedures that have been in place for years, resulting in colossal public safety concerns. Sadly, one of those chickens came home to roost this week in Los Angeles where a cop was killed by a known, violent criminal set free thanks to court-mandated legislation.

Michael Christopher Mejia is suspected of killing Whittier, California policeman Keith Boyer during a shootout in east Los Angeles on Monday. What is so tragic about this case is that Mejia was arrested five times over the past seven months during a probation program that was borne out of a 2011 court decision. He served only two years for a robbery conviction in 2014 and has been allowed to roam free despite five parole violations since 2016 because he had been deemed a “non-violent” offender. And who would want to fill up prisons with such peaceful denizens?

In Brown v. Plata (2011), Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a 5-4 decision asserting that his subjective view of overcrowding in California’s prison system (exacerbated by illegal aliens, by the way) violates the Eight Amendment. The court, therefore, required the state to engage in a massive jailbreak.

Needless to say, the liberal politicians in the state were eager to capitalize on this ruling. Much like Anthony Kennedy redefined marriage to comport with his personal views, he redefined the Eighth Amendment — as a living and breathing amendment — resulting in the release of at least 46,000 prisoners.

This is part of a growing trend whereby judges codify their political agenda for loosening crime statutes into the Constitution. Judges have already invalidated life in prison without parole for juvenile murderers, have invalidated a number of criminal statutes both at the state and federal level, and are now creating an arbitrary constitutional class of non-violent offenders, just like Mejia!

At the time, Justice Samuel Alito dissented due in part to public safety concerns, citing a prisoner release program carried out in Philadelphia in the 1990s:

Although efforts were made to release only those prisoners who were least likely to commit violent crimes, that attempt was spectacularly unsuccessful. During an 18-month period, the Philadelphia police rearrested thousands of these prisoners for committing 9,732 new crimes. Those defendants were charged with 79 murders, 90 rapes, 1,113 assaults, 959 robberies, 701 burglaries, and 2,748 thefts, not to mention thousands of drug offenses.

— Alito, J., dissenting, slip op. at 14

Justice Scalia lampooned Kennedy in a scathing dissent (joined by Justice Thomas), in which he spent nine minutes reading it from the bench and called Plata, “perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation’s history.” (Although, that was before the injunction on marriage and national sovereignty that took place recently!)

Today the Court affirms what is perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our Nation’s history: an order requiring California to release the staggering number of 46,000 convicted criminals.

There comes before us, now and then, a case whose proper outcome is so clearly indicated by tradition and common sense, that its decision ought to shape the law, rather than vice versa. One would think that, before allowing the decree of a federal district court to release 46,000 convicted felons, this Court would bend every effort to read the law in such a way as to avoid that outrageous result. Today, quite to the contrary, the Court disregards stringently drawn provisions of the governing statute, and traditional constitutional limitations upon the power of a federal judge, in order to uphold the absurd.

The proceedings that led to this result were a judicial travesty. I dissent because the institutional reform the District Court has undertaken violates the terms of the governing statute, ignores bedrock limitations on the power of Article III judges, and takes federal courts wildly beyond their institutional capacity.

Sadly, most legal eagles on the Right have been overcome by a strain of libertarianism that actually champions this sort of social transformation from the bench. Federal or state sovereignty, and national security be damned. Amazingly, they want to pass “criminal justice reform” to give the courts even more — not less— power over criminal law.

When reading Scalia’s writings, one is jolted by the degree of common sense, history, and tradition that he used to complement the original meaning of the Constitution and the role of the courts. All of that is lost in today’s judiciary, including much of the right-leaning legal profession. It would be nice to see if Neil Gorsuch shares this same character trait of Scalia, given the wide support for him among legal libertarians. We could add it to our long list of unanswered questions and unknowns about the next Supreme Court pick.

The growing trend of court involvement in criminal justice policy is one of the worst manifestations of social transformation without representation whereby they are violating state sovereignty, congressional statutes, and the underpinnings of the social compact. Even if Gorsuch turns out to be good on these issues, the Left already has an impervious five-seat firewall. And Roberts is also unreliable. Yesterday, the Supreme Court stayed an execution on ridiculous grounds and only Thomas and Alito dissented. They bulldozed settled law, criminal statutes, and state plenary procedures, as they did last year when staying executions in Georgia and Pennsylvania.

Sadly, there will probably be a lot more murders of cops and civilians at the hands of judicially mandated jailbreak before Congress protects state legislatures from the federal courts. (For more from the author of “Lethal Judiciary: California Cop Killed by Known Criminal Released by Activist Supreme Court” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

President Trump’s CPAC Speech Sounded Great … But Was a Total Disappointment. Sad!

/0 Comments/in , /by

Friday morning, President Donald Trump addressed CPAC for the first time since becoming president of the United States. At a time when conservatives need leadership from the president, his speech was a disappointment.

“It’s great to be back at CPAC,” the president said to an adoring crowd. “I wouldn’t miss a chance to talk to my friends … and we’ll be doing this next year. And the year after that.”

The stakes were high for this address. Weeks of controversy have plagued the new administration and have given the appearance of a failure to launch.

How so? The president’s first major action, an executive order on immigration, was poorly executed. Despite the president’s clear statutory authority to issue the order, the administration was unable to defend its action in court. The president’s first choice for national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, was forced to resign amid controversy over his communications with the Russians.

Campaign promises also remain unfulfilled. The president abandoned social conservatives by giving up on an executive order meant to undo an Obama-era directive that harms religious liberty. The president’s repeated pledge to undo President Obama’s illegal amnesty executive order seems dead now. Obamacare is still in place. Tax reform is delayed.

On top of all that several members of the president’s Cabinet are still yet to be confirmed amid Democratic obstruction in the Senate.

Perception is everything in politics, and the missteps from these first few weeks have overshadowed the administration’s successes. For the first time most Americans disapprove of the president’s job performance.

Trump’s appearance at CPAC was a time for the president to reset the agenda. Using his bully pulpit, Trump had an opportunity to assure his conservative base that the administration is moving to keep the promises President Trump made on the campaign trail.

Here was a chance to explain how he will make his vision of governance a reality; to identify how the Democratic party is obstructing the policies the American people voted to implement last November; to outline, for Congress and for the people, the way forward on achieving the repeal of Obamacare, tax reform, the border wall, and the steps necessary to deconstruct the administrative state.

Instead, the president gave a vapid campaign speech, complete with allusions to action in the future and assurances that conservatives will win again.

He began by, rightfully, criticizing the “fake news” media for publishing inaccurate stories. The liberal media certainly deserves to be criticized, but the president already did so last week.

When the president finally addressed the policies his administration will pursue, he did so using oft-repeated phrases from the campaign trail. The gist of the entire speech was presented in one passage:

We will reduce your taxes. We will cut your regulations. We will support our police. We will defend our flag. We will rebuild our military. We will take care of our great, great veterans … we will fix our broken and embarrassing trade deals … we will cut wasteful spending. We will promote our values. We will rebuild our inner cities. We will bring back our jobs and our dreams. And by the way, we will protect our second amendment.

The priority facing Republicans is keeping six years of campaign promises and fully repealing Obamacare. There are good plans for doing so introduced in Congress, but Trump didn’t mention them. “Obamacare doesn’t work … we’re changing it,” he said. “We’re gonna make it much better. We’re gonna make it less expensive.”

Those are great promises, but the American people don’t need promises. They need promises kept. This government needs leadership to ensure that they are kept. And so far the president is acting more like a cheerleader than a leader.

In this respect, the president’s speech highlights a problem with CPAC itself. Just what is the Conservative Political Action Conference conserving? What plans of action are in development to achieve conservative victory?

To be sure, there are breakout sessions where those conversations are happening. But panel attendance is slim. For every conservative looking for an opportunity to advance conservatism, there is someone else looking to make a quick buck. There are times at CPAC when one even wonders if the people speaking are there to promote a legislative agenda, or just to sell a new book or land a new job.

Conservatism has enough cheerleaders. Our movement needs leadership. When the president of the United States tells conservatives “Our victory was a win for everyone who believes in conservative values,” he has the responsibility to demonstrate how that is the case.

How can he lead? Start by pressuring this hesitant Congress to take immediate action to repeal Obamacare and endorse a replacement plan. Instruct Congress to end the liberal judiciary’s interference with executive branch’s legal authority to restrict immigration.

“The era of empty talk is over,” President Trump said. “Now is the time for action”

Those are words the conservative movement needs to apply to itself. Those are words conservatives want the president to live by. But if President Trump’s speech is an indication of things to come, you can’t always get what you want. (For more from the author of “President Trump’s CPAC Speech Sounded Great … But Was a Total Disappointment. Sad!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Another Obamanation Undone: Trump and Sessions Take the Federal Government out of Your Kids’ Bathroom

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Obama administration’s edict on transgender bathrooms in public schools is no more. On Wednesday, President Trump revoked the rules granting transgender individuals access to the sex-segregated facilities of their choice.

“The Department of Justice has a duty to enforce the law,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement about withdrawing the guidance. “Congress, state legislatures, and local governments are in a position to adopt appropriate policies or laws addressing this issue.”

Sessions cited the legal ambiguity and confusion of Obama’s directive for the repeal.

“The prior guidance documents did not contain sufficient legal analysis or explain how the interpretation was consistent with the language of Title IX. The Department of Education and the Department of Justice therefore have withdrawn the guidance,” Sessions said.

“SHOCK!” “HORROR!” “FASCISM!” … countless will cry, as media outlets spin the story as an inhumane assault on transgender “rights.”

But the headline hysteria begs the question of what sort of “rights” we’re talking about here. What right does any human have, on a metaphysical level, to force an institution to accommodate their bathroom preferences, at the expense of everyone else?

What right, for that matter, does anyone have to force an institution to abandon its beliefs in basic human biology?

Even in the philosophically impoverished vision that disputed rights aren’t rights until the Supreme Court finds the stilted grounds on which to manufacture them (e.g. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s infamous “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life”), the court has, to date, issued no such fiat.

Ergo, no such “right” exists, even on dubious grounds.

If anything is truly concerning about this development is that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos — who has, of course, been vilified as the most extreme arch-conservative by anti-Trumpers — reportedly disagreed with repealing the rules, and that the president’s siding with Attorney General Sessions was what tipped the scales in the decision.

If anything is truly concerning about this development, it is the news that Education Secretary does not bode well. This latest outrage is founded on the same lie that fuels some of the most prominent thinking behind school choice — that government-run schools, rather than parents, are the sole, rightful educators of children.

Even without the regulations masquerading as guidance, there is nothing prohibiting parents from pressuring their local school boards to ensure access to transgender bathrooms or transgender-based sexual education. Sessions’ directive simply removes the federal government from the issue altogether (as it should be).

The only purpose of such a rule from the federal Department of Education would be to force the parents of local public schools to accept the anti-scientific arguments that would normalize transgenderism at the institutions that teach their children [read: child abuse] in Manhattan, Dallas, and Salt Lake City, all the same. In short, some parents will not teach what their leftist counterparts want, and must subsequently be forced to comply.

This may come as a shock to many, but a child’s education is the duty of his or her parents — not the state — which acts simply as a subcontractor in the issue.

What children learn – either through curriculum or example – is best decided by those who brought them into this world. Our political institutions and/or governments should merely reflect those decisions.

The fact that parents disagree on this bathroom issue only serves to stress the point that these questions are best addressed at the local level, rather than by technocratic central planners in a faceless bureaucracy. (For more from the author of “Another Obamanation Undone: Trump and Sessions Take the Federal Government out of Your Kids’ Bathroom” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Project Veritas Undercover Audio Exposes CNN Bias

/0 Comments/in , /by

Now that the presidential election is over, James O’Keefe, the undercover videographer of Project Veritas, is turning his sights on the media. Thursday, he released 119 hours of audio secretly taped inside CNN’s headquarters. He will be releasing another 100 hours soon. A disgruntled CNN employee made the recordings in 2009. Employees — including management — are heard freely expressing their biases and how they affect news coverage.

A small portion of the 119 hours of material has been transcribed already. Nicki Robertson, a CNN assignment desk editor, says, “Fox News, I think Fox News is unbearable. It’s horrible.” She goes on in a disdainful voice, “It’s so American.”

Richard T. Griffiths, vice president and senior editorial director at CNN, is heard explaining that the fundamental role of a journalist is in part to “aid the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” He adds, “It’s actually one of the things I can be most proud of as a journalist.”

In another clip, Miss X — who apparently is the undercover journalist — can be heard questioning why an outdated poll was being used, regarding Americans’ opinions of (as yet unconfirmed) Supreme Court appointee Sonia Sotomayor. Arthur Brice answers her: “I don’t think we stand to change how people think of her.”

Arthur Brice is the executive editor of CNN. Joe Sterling was the news desk editor for CNN’s The Wire at the time. Sterling is also heard saying in regards to whether global warming is caused by man, “There’s no debate.” He compares it to “born-agains’” absolute belief in creationism and says, “I admit, I’m a little biased. The only spin I think is going on is by Republicans.”

The Scandal is Going to Get Bigger

O’Keefe is utilizing crowdsourcing, asking for help transcribing the audio since he lacks the manpower. He has been criticized in the past for selectively releasing only parts of his undercover videos, so the release of raw material should dispel those accusations. His organization compares its new strategy to that of Wikileaks.

“The media’s relationship with the establishment renders them incapable of challenging the normative order in our society, while the media systematically targets and shames any independent media organization or citizen which attempts to ferret out real information,” O’Keefe says. “So it’s time to turn their tactics and rules against them.”

While O’Keefe doesn’t think this will necessarily result in the demise of CNN, he told Gateway Pundit, “[E]very time we have previously released undercover audio/video someone does end up fired, someone does end up in jail.” He says he has operatives currently working at several media outlets. He is also offering $10,000 to people who can provide inside evidence of “corruption, malfeasance and wrongdoing” within the newsroom, and he promises to protect his sources’ identities.

The biased so-called mainstream media is already going on the defensive protecting one of their own primary outlets, claiming that most of the CNN employees caught recorded no longer work there. That is fake news. Most of them still work there and in fact at least one has been promoted.

(For more from the author of “Project Veritas Undercover Audio Exposes CNN Bias” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Would You Rather Be Slandered as a Racist or a Rapist?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Recently I was on the Alan Nathan Show, and the radio host asked me why the Left flings reckless and groundless charges of racism at anyone who stands in the way of its policies, such as President Trump. Alan had his own worthwhile answer, but for me the question sparked an epiphany. And I shared it on the air: “It’s a way of trying to destroy someone, like falsely accusing him of rape or looking at kiddie porn,” I said.

For very good reasons, our society now has a stigma against genuinely racist ideas and sentiments. We still bear the scars of 300 years of slavery, and another 100 years of un-Constitutional segregation and bias. Our black fellow citizens deserve our special efforts to show equal respect and solicitude. Given that our own government (in Dred Scott) specifically exempted black Americans from legal personhood, and until 1964 (the year I was born) allowed explicit and open racial discrimination, it seems reasonable that we bend over backwards for a while longer to root out the remnants of bias.

Racism is Real and Evil

For that reason, our government reaches past what should be its proper powers, and interferes with our freedom of contract and freedom of association to prevent us from abusing them to further racial discrimination. Given our government’s past collusion with racism, this seems right for now. But that doesn’t mean that the state should throw those principles in the garbage, as the Left is now demanding when it threatens to destroy Christian business owners for opting out of same-sex weddings, or tries to shut down all-male clubs.

Precisely because anti-black racism was the source of such appalling crimes, from the slave trade that shattered families to lynchings of black men with impunity right up through the Second World War, we ought not to trivialize the very word, by flinging it far and wide when it doesn’t apply. But that is precisely what leftists have learned to do, and it’s a winning tactic. That’s why they use it — not because they sincerely believe that it’s “racist” for English literature departments to offer plenty of courses on great authors from England, just as a French department would offer courses on authors from France. Or for Americans to want their country’s border to be controlled, just as Mexicans and Indians and Congolese want their countries’ borders controlled.

The Left Redefines Racism and Makes it Meaningless

Liberals aren’t sincerely mistaken about the extent of racism in America. Many are lying about it, cynically, to grab cultural power and terrorize their enemies. The abuse of the word “racism” is a nasty political smear, intended to tar people, especially those with conservative mores and a love for Western Civilization, with the blood that dripped from lynching trees in the unjust Jim Crow South. The left has even redefined the word “racism,” to suit its abuse as a weapon.

We now hear from campus authorities that only white people are capable of racism, because (as they have hijacked the word), it refers not to racial bias or hatred, but attitudes of privilege connected with long-standing social dominance. If that sounds like Marxist gobbledygook that’s because it is. By this standard, when genocidal Hutus in Rwanda broadcast calls for the extermination of Tutsis, what they were doing wasn’t racist. Nor is it racist when Syrian refugees torch a synagogue in Germany, or campus leftists jeer at Jewish students and shout down Israeli speakers.

This handy, repurposed word “racism” is pretty much the ultimate insult. Our government explicitly tries to stamp out racism, and with Ronald Reagan’s support denied a tax exemption to a Christian school (Bob Jones University) when that school’s past policies seemed motivated by racial bias. Not just elites but ordinary people want to avoid the taint of racism, in part because of the stigma, but more so because they know exactly how evil racism’s outcomes can be — from the extermination of Jews to the enslavement of Africans.

Fake Rape and Sex Abuse Charges

Abusing a word like racism is almost as malicious, and nearly as destructive, as falsely charging someone with other despicable, illegal activities, such as the sexual abuse of children, or forcible rape. Sadly, fake charges are used to discredit people all the time. Baseless accusations of child abuse are now a weapon in divorce custody battles, and campus feminists are demanding (and getting) kangaroo courts for sex disputes that trample the rights of the (often falsely) accused. Liberals tried to derail Betsy DeVos’s nomination for Secretary of Education, and smear a worthy free-speech group, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, for opposing those kangaroo courts. (And let’s not forget Rolling Stone’s fake gang-rape story, which nearly destroyed an innocent fraternity.)

Here’s a safe rule in such cases: The more serious the charge, the more destructive it is if true, the higher the standard of evidence you should insist upon. And no one should get away with abusing our proper disgust at genuine racism, real child abuse, or the crime of rape, in order to savage his political opponents. Those who lie on such serious subjects deserve contempt and consequences. (For more from the author of “Would You Rather Be Slandered as a Racist or a Rapist?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Christian Group: Israel Is Key to Christian Presence in Middle East

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the past decade, millions of Christians have fought to escape persecution and violence in the Middle East. Many have died, while others have traveled to Europe, the U.S., and elsewhere in search of safety.

According to Robert Nicholson, Executive Director of The Philos Project, two of the keys to a continued Christian presence in The Holy Land include a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq and a thriving Israel.

“It is imperative that the United States continue to support the existence of the State of Israel,” Nicholson told The Stream at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). “It is imperative that we not withdraw from Iraq after its liberation, as that will create a power vacuum which will be filled by another insurgency.”

The U.S. has led a coalition of nations against terrorist actors and others in Iraq for nearly 15 years. Some say the terrorist group ISIS, which in recent years has been the focus of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts, arose because former President Barack Obama drew down the U.S. presence in the nation. Others say ISIS wouldn’t exist if former President George W. Bush had not launched the invasion in the first place in 2003.

Christians make up between five and 10 percent of the Syrian population, but just one-half of one percent of the refugees accepted from Syria in the 2016 fiscal year. Nicholson told The Stream that U.S. policy on the Middle East should aid both Christians who want to come to America and those who wish to stay in their homelands.

I support the prioritization of Christian and other minority refugees whose lives have been destroyed by the Islamic state. After being forced from their homes, they are often the victims of further discrimination in neighboring Arab countries who have been aiding in the refugee crisis. It is imperative, however, that by favoring certain minorities, U.S. policy does not inadvertently drain the region of Christianity. At-risk minority communities in Iraq and Syria must be preserved.

“I see a deep need to protect minority interests on the ground in Iraq and Syria,” Nicholson continued. “Christianity and Judaism is quickly disappearing from the Arab world – the cradle of both those religions. The Philos Project seeks to reinvigorate thoughtful discussion on sustainable solutions to preserve minority heritage in the region.”

The Philos Project hosted a panel at CPAC is entitled, “Why Disengagement Isn’t an Option in the Middle East.” Nicholson said his group is aiming “to inform and educate Christian leaders and future leaders to have a holistic understanding of the complex situations in the Middle East.”

“We recognize that many leaders who care about Israel and Christianity in the Middle East come to the CPAC conference,” concluded Nicholson, who said the CPAC panel “will explore strategies for sustainable U.S. policy in the region.” (For more from the author of “Christian Group: Israel Is Key to Christian Presence in Middle East” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘A Day Without a Woman’ Organizers Call Prostitution ‘Women’s Work’

/0 Comments/in , /by

I’ve tried, really I have, but I just can’t register anything but exasperation and disgust at these instructions for the International Women’s Strike, aka, A Day Without a Woman, being planned for March 8th. This is ridiculous.

How to organize and participate in the International Women’s Strike on March 8

The strike is inclusive of all women and of all forms of work women do: women working in the formal labor market with or without labor rights, with or without unions and the legal right to strike, and with or without legal status; unemployed women; sex workers; women performing unpaid housework and care work; and students. For this reason, participation in the strike can take several forms:

1. Wherever it is possible, help the creation of a large women’s strike social coalition. Check for information about local organizing on our website: www.womenstrikeus.org. If there is no meeting yet for your town, help call one!

2. Organize or participate in local marches, demonstrations and walkouts.

3. Organize or participate in picket lines and direct actions of civil disobedience. This can also be organized in support of already existing campaigns or labor negotiations or controversies, especially if involving working women.

4. Organize a strike in your workplace. If you have a union, get your union on board; if you don’t, assess with your coworkers whether it is possible to organize a walkout without jeopardizing your job.

5. Organize a boycott of companies using sexism in their advertisements or approach to workers.

6. Organize a boycott of chosen local misogynists.

7. If you can, leave care and housework for the day and join your local demonstrations.

8. In case you can’t stop work, get your friends together who support the strike and wear or use the color red that day, for example, red clothes, or a red ribbon.

9. Strike from gender roles.

Please tell me I’m not the only person who did a double-take. I still can’t believe I’m reading that correctly. “Sex workers.” “All forms of work women do.” Apparently prostitution is women’s work. And in order to teach these misogynists a thing or two, “sex workers” should go on strike for a day and see how well those ungrateful jerks get along without them. Then come March 9th, it’s back to “work”?

For All Those “Unpaid Houseworkers”

I suppose I find myself included in their list under, “women performing unpaid housework and care work.” I guess taking care of my children at home would be “care work.” And I don’t receive a paycheck for keeping the house clean, so that must be unpaid housework.

I guess I’m supposed to declare the couch and the television mine for the day and refuse to lift a finger for my family. No cooking, no changing diapers (sorry, baby, but a strike is a strike. Change your own poopy diaper). Not a dish will I wash, nor a towel will I fold, nor a meal will I prepare for those selfish, blood-sucking leeches who take from me all day long without so much as kissing my feet or prostrating themselves in homage.

The indignity! I am Woman!

I’m sorry if that sounds a bit over the top, but this “worship me because I’m a woman” routine really grates on the nerves. It’s especially tone-deaf coming from a leftist mob that is willing to call a man in a dress a woman just because he says he’s a woman and got himself some breast implants. Yeah, you don’t get to lecture anyone on the value of women’s contributions to society when you can’t even correctly identify a woman.

Then There’s the So-Called “Sex Work”

Looking at #5 and #6 on the list up there, I have to ask: Isn’t “sex work” rather sexist? Misogynist, even? How exactly does prostitution display a deep respect for women? How does “sex work” combat misogyny?

When you boycott all those local misogynists, will that include the pimps and the strip joints? What do you think your one-day boycott is going to accomplish? You’re on record saying that sex is legitimate work for a woman. So how can you complain about those misogynists who take you at your word?

And by the way, a lot of those “sex workers” could be minor girls who “work” for folks who traffick them from place to place whether they like it or not, so you be sure to let them know they should go on strike for a day from their “work.” Trafficking, what am I saying? I meant business trips.

Who are all the other “local misogynists” in your crosshairs? Probably anyone who still believes that men and women, while equal in dignity, are indeed quite different by design, and that’s a good thing. Certainly anyone who refuses to think that equality for women requires championing the slaughter of babies in the womb. And certainly anyone who still thinks a woman is, by definition, biologically female.

Striking From “Gender Roles”

How exactly are we supposed to “strike from gender roles,” anyway? Why on earth should I need to strike from the roles uniquely afforded to me precisely because I am a woman? And what’s wrong with being a woman? I don’t want to be a man!

Also, does this striking from “gender roles” mean the “sex worker” gets to play the pimp for the day?

You cannot scream about the irreplaceable value of women while disdaining the very things only women can do, then legitimize the sexual exploitation of women. Women and girls for sale is not “work.”

Join Me in Striking This Strike

This is one woman who won’t be going on strike. The only thing I’m motivated to protest these days is insane leftist nonsense like this.

I refuse to take my cue from anyone who considers prostitution “a form of work women do,” yet has no idea whatsoever what it means to be a homemaker. All that “unpaid housework and care work.”

On the contrary, on March 8th and every day, I’ll be grateful for my vocation as a wife and mother; happy to keep my home clean, and my family fed and cared for. It’s my honor to serve my family. And when my husband comes home from a hard day at work, I’ll be especially grateful I didn’t have to live a day without a man — my man. I already know he’s grateful not to have to live a day without a woman — me. (For more from the author of “‘A Day Without a Woman’ Organizers Call Prostitution ‘Women’s Work'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Nothing More Feminist Than Self-Defense, Gun Rights Advocate Says

/1 Comment/in , /by

A panel of women said that gun rights should be a feminist issue Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC.

During the discussion, Antonia Okafor, a student at the University of Texas at Dallas and campus carry advocate, said gun rights—and the ability to independently protect yourself—are the very epitome of feminism.

“How much more feminist can you get than by talking about self-defense and advocating for that,” Okafor said.

Gun advocates Kimberly Corban, Ashlee Lundvall, and Kristi McMains joined Okafor on the panel moderated by Townhall.com editor Katie Pavlich.

“We need to let women know it’s OK, it’s prudent, it’s legal, it’s moral to carry a gun for self-protection, in fact, it could save your life, because it saved mine,” McMains said.

McMains said she was attacked in a parking garage last year, and she used her concealed weapon to successfully fight off an attacker.

McMains spoke about the side of the gun control debate she said often goes unaddressed—how guns save lives.

“You can become a victim of violence anywhere, anytime, and therefore I should be able to save my own life anywhere, anytime,” McMains said. “When the time comes, should we need to, we’re gonna use [a firearm] to save our lives.”

Corban, a sexual assault survivor and vocal supporter of gun rights, said both the fear and curiosity surrounding guns can be alleviated through education.

“[Education] in it of itself is going to make a better firearms community, a better community in general,” Corban said.

“That’s the feminist movement, right?” she continued. “We want women to be educated and empowered, and feel like they can do anything and watch them do it.”

Corban said she hopes women will realize that guns are empowering, not something to be afraid of.

“Someone else already took my power away and I’m going to take it back,” Corban said.

According to a report from the National Rifle Association, women are the fastest-growing group of gun owners in the country. In 2011, 23 percent of women self-reported as gun owners, a 10 percent increase from 2005, a Gallup poll found. Additionally, 42 percent of women who own a firearm own at least three.

CPAC, the largest annual national gathering of conservative activists, runs from Wednesday to Saturday at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington. (For more from the author of “Nothing More Feminist Than Self-Defense, Gun Rights Advocate Says” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.