Rogue Factory Robot Blamed for Death of Human Colleague

A rogue robot has been blamed for the death of a woman killed in an accident at an auto-parts factory in Michigan.

Wanda Holbrook, who worked as a maintenance technician at the Ventra Ionia Mains plant for 12 years, was “trapped by robotic machinery and pronounced dead at the scene” in July 2015.

The 57-year-old’s widower, William Holbrook, has filed a wrongful death complaint seeking damages from five robotics companies responsible for manufacturing, installing and testing the robotics: Lincoln Electric, Flex-N-Gate, Prodomax, FANUC and Nachi.

“Wanda was working in either section 140 or 150 within the ‘100’ cell, when a robot from section 130 took Wanda by surprise, entering the section she was working,” the lawsuit alleges . . .

“A failure of one or more of defendants’ safety systems or devices had taken place, causing Wanda’s death.” (Read more from “Rogue Factory Robot Blamed for Death of Human Colleague” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Admiral, Seven Others Charged With Corruption in New ‘Fat Leonard’ Indictment

The Justice Department unsealed a fresh indictment Tuesday charging eight Navy officials — including an admiral — with corruption and other crimes in the “Fat Leonard” bribery case, escalating an epic scandal that has dogged the Navy for four years.

Among those charged were Rear Adm. Bruce Loveless, a senior Navy intelligence officer who recently retired from a key job at the Pentagon, as well as four retired Navy captains and a retired Marine colonel. The charges cover a period of eight years, from 2006 through 2014.

The Navy personnel are accused of taking bribes in the form of lavish gifts, prostitutes and luxury hotel stays courtesy of Leonard Glenn “Fat Leonard” Francis, a Singapore-based defense contractor who has pleaded guilty to defrauding the Navy of tens of millions of dollars.

The indictment lists page after page of bribes allegedly provided to the defendants including $25,000 watches, $2,000 boxes of Cohiba cigars, $2,000 bottles of cognac and $600-per-night hotel rooms. (Read more from “Admiral, Seven Others Charged With Corruption in New ‘Fat Leonard’ Indictment” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Popular Rapper ‘Shoots’ Trump in Music Video

Snoop Dogg stars in a new politically-charged music video that sees the rapper pull a gun on and “shoot” a parody clown version of President Donald Trump.

Visuals for “Lavender,” a song that first appeared on BADBADNOTGOOD and Kaytranada’s IV, show a clown-faced President “Ronald Klump” holding a press conference where he announces a plan to “deport all dogs.”

“The ban that this motherf*cker tried to put up; him winning the presidency,” Snoop says is what inspired the concept of that part of the video, Billboard reports.

The dog deportation plan spurs Snoop Dogg and a gang of armed men to ambush the parody President Trump. Snoop points a gun at Trump’s head and pulls the trigger. A giant “BANG” flag pops out.

Snoop says he’s not worried about what his critics might say of the controversial scene. (Read more from “Watch: Popular Rapper ‘Shoots’ Trump in Music Video” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judge: Obama ‘Went Outside Chain of Command,’ Used British Spy Agency to Surveil Trump

The Justice Department on Monday asked lawmakers for more time to gather evidence related to President Trump’s claim that former President Obama ordered wiretaps on Trump Tower’s phones during last year’s presidential campaign . . .

On “Fox & Friends” this morning, Judge Andrew Napolitano said that even if the Obama administration did spy on Trump, there may never be a way to prove it . . .

“Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command,” Napolitano said. “He didn’t use the NSA, he didn’t use the CIA, he didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use the Department of Justice.”

Instead, Napolitano said, Obama used GCHQ, a British intelligence and security organization that has 24-7 access to the NSA database.

“There’s no American fingerprints on this,” Napolitano said. “What happened to the guy who ordered this? Resigned three days after Donald Trump was inaugurated.” (Read more from “Judge: Obama ‘Went Outside Chain of Command,’ Used British Spy Agency to Surveil Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Iran Deal Architect Is Now Running Tehran Policy at the State Department

A trusted Obama aide who once worked for an alleged Iranian regime lobbying group is one of the individuals in charge of Iran policy planning at the State Department under Secretary Rex Tillerson.

Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, the Iran director for former President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), has burrowed into the government under President Trump. She’s now in charge of Iran and the Persian Gulf region on the policy planning staff at the State Department.

To make matters worse, Nowrouzzadeh is a former employee of the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), a non-profit that is accused of being a lobbying group for the Iranian regime. NIAC’s current president, Trita Parsi, has long held close relationships with top officials in the Tehran dictatorship. In February, a group of over 100 prominent Iranian dissidents called for Congress to investigate NIAC’s ties to the Iranian regime.

One of Nowrouzzadeh’s primary duties under President Obama was to promote initiatives that pushed the Iran deal. As President Obama’s NSC director for Iran, Nowrouzzadeh sat in on high-level briefings along with President Obama, former VP Joe Biden, and former Secretary of State John Kerry, as top White House staff crafted false narratives on the Iran deal to sell to the American public.

According to the head of a state-run Iranian newspaper, Nowrouzzadeh was an essential element to pushing through the Iran deal. Editor-in-Chief Emad Abshenass said that she opened up a direct line of communication with the Iranian president’s brother. “She helped clear a number of contradictions and allowed the entire endeavor to succeed,” Abshenass said of her efforts.

Nowrouzzadeh’s advocacy for President Obama’s directives resulted in an agreement that has done enormous damage to the security interests of the United States and its allies. Iran, the world’s top sponsor of international terrorism, was gifted $150 billion dollars for agreeing to the deal. The deal will not restrict Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In fact, the regime in Tehran may now have the operational capacity to deploy nuclear warheads within the next decade, according to expert estimates.

Towards the end of President Obama’s tenure, Nowrouzzadeh was embedded into the State Department and for a brief time served as its Persian language spokesperson.

In addition to Nowrouzzadeh, several other prominent Obama officials currently serve under Sec Tillerson at the State Department. A former John Kerry apprentice, Michael Ratney, occupies the Israeli-Palestinian portfolio there. Another trusted Obama aide, Yael Lempert, also serves under Tillerson on the same platform.

Why Secretary Tillerson has decided to keep on a chief Obama policy official remains unclear. The State Department did not return multiple requests for comment seeking additional information on Nowrouzzadeh’s role at the government agency. (For more from the author of “Iran Deal Architect Is Now Running Tehran Policy at the State Department” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Truth Is Vault 7 Is Empty! Government Is Totally Incompetent!

In this video, Vin Armani takes a deep dive into Vault 7 and discovers that the CIA’s technology isn’t nearly as scary as media reports have made out. Most of their “hacking” tools require a tech-savvy agent to be physically in the same room as the target device in order to install malware. And most of their malware is wiped out by the next routine software update by the device maker.

Watch the full broadcast here.

(For more from the author of “The Truth Is Vault 7 Is Empty! Government Is Totally Incompetent!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why the GOP Can’t Seem to Banish Obamacare

President Trump made some experts snicker when he explained the delay in unrolling the Republican replacement for Obamacare: “Who knew health care was so complicated?” Pundits who had spent years sweating the details of the many facets of health insurance policy came back at Trump with versions of “Er, hello? We’ve been saying that for years. Now if you’ll turn to page 723 of my proposal….” Indeed the policy details are enormously complex, and I won’t presume to wade in as an amateur to the debate over whether the current Republican proposal is the smartest or most politically viable plan for setting free one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

One thing conservatives have been right about all along: Obama’s plan was so complicated and unsustainable, it was tempting to believe that it was constructed that way on purpose. By building a Rube Goldberg machine that first entangled millions of Americans, before collapsing under its own weight (well after he’d left office), Obama would create the conditions where Americans would demand that the federal government “solve” the new healthcare crisis by creating a single-payer, British-style system of socialized medicine. In effect, the whole country would just slide onto Medicare.

Hard-working conservative policy wonks have been toiling for years to propose politically and fiscally workable alternatives to Obamacare. Most of these experts are sharply critical of the new plan Trump is backing, which seems to be a kind of Obamacare Lite, with tax incentives that slightly favor the better off, and a different kind of penalty for those who don’t buy insurance. I lack the expertise to wade into the details and try to clarify them, but the principles underlying them are clear. There’s a fundamental moral problem at the heart of the healthcare debate, which various plans — Obamacare as well as its conservative alternatives — have flailed around trying to solve.

It’s the problem that economists call the “free-rider.” I can explain it best with a personal anecdote. Last week one of my deranged rescue beagles yanked the leash so hard that it messed up my right wrist. (I’m a righty.) The pain was blinding, throbbing, debilitating. I couldn’t write my column. It hurt to use the mouse for any reason. In a perfect world, I would have gone to a hospital emergency room to get immediate care — since making the arrangements to get into an orthopedist would have taken days, during which I couldn’t work (or even brush my teeth very effectively).

Emergency Wards Full of Illegal Immigrants

Of course, since I live in the real world and my sister is a nurse, I knew better than to go anywhere near an emergency room — which are chock-full of people without any health insurance, many of them without the legal right to reside in this country, lining up to get routine care which they won’t ever have to pay for. Who would have to pay for them? I would. When insured, paying customers do turn up at the emergency room, they must be soaked to cover the costs, or else hospitals will close. The sheer number of free riders force the “fare” paid by regular customers to crippling heights — and that is why after a childbirth or short hospital stay, you will see on your bill itemized charges like $20 Q-tips.

I didn’t want to come home with a bill that socked me for the whole cost of my annual deductible for a single injury, so instead of going to the doctor, I found a massage therapist and relied on Advil and ice baths. Thankfully, I got better. But it struck me as a rather ironic that because I have a job and insurance, I have effectively less access to emergency care than illegal immigrants willing to wait several hours to get routine care from an emergency room — which typically won’t turn anyone away, even if there is little evidence of any genuine emergency. The New England Health Care Institute (PDF) warned back in 2010:

The overuse of U.S. emergency departments (EDs) is responsible for $38 billion in wasteful spending each year.

ED overuse is on the rise across all patient populations, irrespective of age or insurance coverage.

Drivers of ED overuse include lack of access to timely primary care services, referral to the ED by primary care physicians themselves, and financial and legal obligations by hospitals to treat all patients who arrive in the ED.

Turning Doctors and Nurses into Indentured Servants

The numbers are surely worse today. The combination of federal laws and liability risk makes it very difficult for staff at emergency wards to simply say “No” to someone who turns up with an ear infection or flu symptoms, and wants to be taken care of — though they are quite unable to pay, and don’t qualify for Medicaid (since they’re illegals).

Congressman Ron Paul, MD, had the right answer to resolving this free rider problem. He shocked people in the 2012 presidential campaign when he said that the government should remove any legal or regulatory requirement that doctors or hospitals treat people who won’t be able to pay them, apart from obvious, life-threatening emergencies.

Rep. Paul was right. Food is just as crucial to life as health care, but we don’t let hungry people turn up at restaurants and ditch the tab. There is no moral case for drafting health care professionals into indentured servitude for those unable to pay. The fact that emergency wards are available for this purpose surely discourages a certain percentage of people who could afford health insurance from spending the money to get it. And of course, we should not be providing free medical care — except for life-threatening emergencies — to illegal residents at all.

Americans Who Game the System

So that’s one kind of free rider. But here’s another, home grown specimen. Someone I knew, a working attorney, churchgoer and political conservative, told me that he really resented the Obamacare mandate that he sign up for health insurance. He was healthy, young, and physically active. He didn’t like being pressed into the insurance pool to effectively subsidize older, sedentary people who needed care. So far so good, I guess.

But then I asked him why he didn’t sign up for some form of catastrophic insurance. What if he got in a car accident, or was struck down with some rare cancer? He didn’t have savings or assets that could begin to cover the real costs of health care he’d need. How would he deal with the bills that would come from hospitals and surgeons?

At that he shrugged and smiled. “Oh, that’s what bankruptcy laws are for.” He explained that a number of his clients were uninsured adults who had faced enormous medical debts. He got bankruptcy judgments that let them pay pennies on the dollar. Apparently he took these cases not as cautionary tales but as inspiration.

Leave aside Obamacare’s absurd restrictions (which must be repealed) that virtually killed off catastrophic insurance plans, like the kind I used to have. How many young, healthy Americans who normally would shell out a few hundred dollars a month for catastrophic insurance don’t do so, because they are counting on Chapter 11 as their “insurer” of last resort? Morally, such people are no better than illegal immigrants who expect free medical care at emergency wards. In fact, as well-educated Americans with better options, they’re actually worse. Obamacare’s individual mandate was a ham-handed, probably un-Constitutional attempt to address this very real issue. It’s young, healthy people like my friend who make an insurance pool viable. If they don’t fear that medical debt could ever do them serious harm, many will not buy insurance. So the system will totter and fail.

No reform of health care in America will really address the fundamental problem of “free riders” jacking up costs for the rest of us unless it removes the legal obligation of medical professionals to work unpaid in non-emergency cases — and reforms bankruptcy laws that allow those who are willfully uninsured to essentially cheat the doctors and nurses who cared for them.

And now I leave it to the wonks to sweat the details. (For more from the author of “Why the GOP Can’t Seem to Banish Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Has a Chance to Shake up the US-Saudi Relationship: Will He?

If the U.S.-Saudi alliance is to continue, the parameters of it must change so that American security interests can be preserved.

President Trump will meet Thursday with Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman, the country’s deputy crown prince and next in line to the throne.

The Saudi agenda at the meeting in Washington will involve “the strengthening of bilateral relations between the two countries and regional issues of mutual interest,” according to the state-run Saudi Press Agency.

The president’s agenda for the meeting is currently unknown, and the White House has not yet released talking points on the matter. However, top agenda items in past meetings between the two countries have centered on energy prices and the wars in the Middle East.

The United States used to rely heavily upon Saudi Arabia for the importation of energy resources. But recent discoveries have changed that leverage; the U.S. has billions of barrels of oil that have yet to be utilized, and President Trump has expressed that he wants America to become more energy independent.

Next on the agenda involves analyzing the complicated relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, and how to proceed with the alliance moving forward.

Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s foremost violators of the basic human rights of its citizens. The country treats women (both through legal and traditional procedures) as inferior beings, imposing harsh restrictions that limit their mobility in both their personal and professional lives.

Not only does Saudi Arabia impose human rights violations within its borders, the country is heavily engaged in proselytizing its radical Wahhabi doctrine throughout the world.

Wahhabism, the predominant ideology inside the country, was founded about 250 years ago after the Saudi royal family established an alliance with cleric Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab. This allowed for the Saudi royal family to stay in power while fundamentalists could preach their fringe ideology without question. Today, the treaty still remains in place between Riyadh’s radical Islamic forces and its dynasty.

Critics allege that Wahhabism promotes a fundamentalist version of Islam that leads followers to embrace groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Moreover, individuals within the country (who work inside and outside the government) are suspected of directly funding countless militant jihadist movements.

And, at the same time, Saudi Arabia has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into normalizing its ideology in the West. The Saudis have donated countless millions to establish its Islamist brand in America’s finest academic institutions, such as Harvard and Yale University.

President Trump should ask that Saudi Arabia rein in its anti-American elements and end its domestic abuses. Doing so would be in America’s best interests and could provide for a stronger basis for a real partnership between the two nations. Saudi Arabia should stop promoting dangerous, undemocratic ideologies if it wants a continued partner in the United States. (For more from the author of “Trump Has a Chance to Shake up the US-Saudi Relationship: Will He?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Texas Redistricting Case Makes It Official: Courts Are Rigging the Game … And It’s Entirely Legal

A gerrymandering case out of Texas serves to further prove the point that the judiciary is rigging the game against Republican candidates — and it’s all completely legal.

Late Friday, a panel of federal judges threw out three of Texas’ congressional districts — because racism. This further highlights how the federal judiciary is using provisions of the Voting Rights Act to rig elections in favor of Democrat candidates.

According to a report at NPR:

Judges Xavier Rodriguez and Orlando Garcia wrote the court’s decision, which comes after a protracted and complex legal battle that began when the new districts were drawn in 2011, following the last census.

“The political motive does not excuse or negate that use of race; rather, the use of race is ultimately problematic for precisely that reason — because of their political motive, they intentionally drew a district based on race in a location where such use of race was not justified by a compelling state interest,” says the ruling.

Politically motivated redistricting is legal, but redistricting with an intent to reduce the influence of minority voters — either by “packing” those voters into a district, or “cracking” them among multiple districts — is not.

More troubling is that the ruling goes after both practices of political redistricting (packing and cracking) and throw both out, alleging to discern racial animus amongst the political — even though the political was most clear. (What gifted mind-readers in black robes we have at our disposal!)

So there is literally no way to draw districts in a political fashion without a federal judge being able to cry racist and kick the maps out.

What’s truly laughable is that the state maps of Maryland and Illinois – which are infamously rigged in favor of Democrat politicians – remain wholly unchallenged despite some of the absurd-looking districts on their maps. But, details …

Even if as many GOP politicians were legitimately racist as liberals claim, the Left tends to forget what politicians really love: winning elections. Any sensible politician will draw a map that maximizes their chances of winning, regardless of race. You may not like it, but it’s legal, constitutional, and how things have been done since ratification.

As Daniel Horowitz and I explained in a previous, more comprehensive piece on the subject:

Then there is the reality that contrary to breaking up demographic constituencies, many of the maps pull them together. One could statistically argue that such districts would actually give minorities a statistical punch above their weight in Congress than if the lines were drawn otherwise.

When a minority votes near-monolithically for one party and lives in geographically distinct enough areas to be lumped together via gerrymandering, of course that is the result of intentional action. That’s not racially motivated; it’s party motivated. How much smaller would the Congressional Black Caucus be if those districts weren’t drawn as such?

First, in order for the courts to rule that maps drawn with political intent are racially discriminatory, they assumed that minorities are going to monolithically vote for Democrats every single time. This is a false assumption and just bad law when one realizes that the whole of American political history displays the continual birth, death, and realignment of political coalitions.

If you grant one voter bloc a new constitutional right to maximize their potential, then why not grant another bloc (of another demographic) the same constitutional right? What about white rural voters? What about white rural voters in blue states (listed above) who have also had their representation sliced up? Why is nobody crying “foul” and “racism” over them?

So, because Republicans often have enjoy atrocious election results among some racial demographics, any effort to draw a constitutional map that isn’t suicidal will look racially motivated. However, as much as Democrats do everything they can to shame black people out of even entertaining the idea of voting Republican, the amount of melanin in your skin does not dictate your political party.

Simply put, there’s no way to draw a district map without someone being able to claim disappointment or “disenfranchisement.” This is why these are political questions — not ones for unelected judges, unaccountable election commissions, or (per a recent suggestion) the robots.

There’s only one question remaining about the current redistricting scenario: Where is Congress?

Since several states are losing a constitutionally enumerated power at the hands of the judiciary — based off the interpretation of a law that usurped that power — it would only make sense that the branch that started the problem clean up its own mess by either clarifying what the courts’ power over the states are, or repealing the outdated provisions of the act (or the whole thing) altogether.

Until then, Democrats have a handy way to pick the lock and rig the system on future elections, and it’s only going to get worse. (For more from the author of “Texas Redistricting Case Makes It Official: Courts Are Rigging the Game … And It’s Entirely Legal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Catch the Left’s Latest Boycott Hype? Neither Did the Rest of America

“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

One of the few things the Left used to be really good at was boycotting: What they lacked in ideological fervor they made up for in boots-on-the-ground activism. That talent seems to be fading though, as the “A Day Without A Woman” flopped, and two other pet causes — the anti-feminist, feminist crusade against Ivanka Trump and Starbuck’s support for refugees —have also been a disappointment. While average Americans are no doubt tired of outlandish commercial leftism, this is also what happens when ideology is as stable as shifting sand and as vacuous as air.

The world didn’t end without women

On Wednesday — “International Women’s Day” — the same folks who organized the “Women’s March on Washington,” decided the best way to show their solidarity for women and demonstrate the vital importance women have on society and the economy was to have “A Day Without A Woman.” Effectively, they encouraged women to take the day off if possible.

No really. So many women in the public school district in Alexandria, VA, about 300 staff, asked for “personal leave” on March 8 that the school didn’t feel they could effectively hold class in the system’s 17 schools … so they cancelled. It’s unclear if the administration’s policy requires they grant personal leave to everyone who requests it, but they certainly did so in this case. Not only did the school cancel classes with only 48 hours warning, but this meant women who were unable to take the day off work — a situation many women, especially with lower-paying jobs find themselves in — had to arrange for and pay for childcare. The same thing happened in North Carolina. How’s that for appreciating women!

The elementary portion of this elite prep school in New York called The Ethical Culture Fieldston School also was forced to cancel school due to so many elementary teachers taking the day off for “A Day Without A Woman.” This school didn’t make the call until the night before and tuition there costs upwards of $47,000 a year.

Fieldston leader Jessica Bagby said, “I am deeply sorry about the impact this protest will have on families at Fieldston Lower, and women in particular, for whom this walkout creates an undue burden and reinforces inequities tied to economic means and job security.” Bagby nails it. First and foremost: What message did this send little girls (and boys) who attend school? Want to have a day off, I mean participate in a political protest? Be a teacher! Second, this act of protesting, failing to go to work — which is somehow supposed to honor women — is entirely counterintuitive. It forced women who must work to scramble to find childcare, placing an even larger burden on them. It’s safe to say this this protest was a bust.

Starbucks brand reputation has dipped

When President Trump issued an executive order halting refugees from certain countries from entering the United States, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz proudly proclaimed with a hint of righteous indignation he’d hire 10,000 refugees over the next five years to make a political point. As CEO he can do whatever he wants, hopefully legally, and certainly there’s nothing wrong with hiring folks who need work. But Schultz took it a step further by capitalizing on a political statement all while contradicting himself (If he cared so much about refugees, why not make the same proclamation last year?).

This squishy approach too seems to have backfired. Since Schultz made the announcement, Starbucks stock has plummeted. CNBC reports analysts at Credit Suisse found Schultz’ declaration is hurting the Starbucks brand. In a research note, equity analyst Jason West wrote, “Our work shows a sudden drop in brand sentiment following announcement of the refugee hiring initiative on Jan. 29th, to flattish from a run-rate of ~+80 (on an index of -100 to +100). Net sentiment has since recovered, but has seen significant volatility in recent weeks.” A dip in brand reputation could result in a dip in sales unless it quickly recovers.

Ivanka’s clothing line sales have surged

Remember when feminists loved other women who seemed like ideal feminists, until they turned out to be the daughters of a Republican president? That’s exactly what’s happened with Ivanka Trump. If her lineage was still a mystery, feminists would be extolling the many ways Ivanka embodies modern feminism: A confident business woman, Ivanka balances her work with her children, and stands up for her beliefs. This all changed when her father moved into the White House. Two companies withdrew her clothing line citing poor sales.

While that seems unlikely, it appears that may have also backlashed. According to Refinery 29, sales have surged not just since the inauguration, but since those retailers dropped her products. Though Ivanka’s company declined to give sales specifics, Abigail Klem, the new president of the brand said:

Since the beginning of February, they were some of the best performing weeks in the history of the brand. For several different retailers Ivanka Trump was a top performer online, and in some of the categories it was the [brand’s] best performance ever.

These boycotts may ultimately fail, but they can still cause harm. They still communicate falsehoods about economics, feminism, and work ethic — especially to our youth. I’m not bemoaning the fact that liberal boycotts seem to be less effective than they used to be. I’d find it humorous if it weren’t so sad and pathetic. But these are all examples of what happens when activism trumps ideology. A liberal’s ideology is about as firm as the sand on a seashore and their boycotts crumble like a sand castle — standing tall for a minute, then washing away when the waves hit. (For more from the author of “Catch the Left’s Latest Boycott Hype? Neither Did the Rest of America” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.