Iran Re-Elects Rouhani as President

/0 Comments/in , /by

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani won a second term in office on Friday, securing about 57 percent of the votes cast in Iran’s carefully vetted and stage-managed presidential election.

Rouhani, a pragmatic hardliner often mistakenly described as a “moderate” by western media, outpolled a field of rival candidates that included Ebrahim Raisi, an ultra-hardline protégé of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader.

The election will change little in Iran. In Iran’s theocratic political system, elections advance the interests of mullahcracy, not democracy.

Iran’s clerical rulers claim legitimacy by purporting to be carrying out the will of God, not the will of the people.

Unlike in the U.S., Iran’s president is a political figurehead with very limited powers and responsibilities.

Iran’s Supreme leader is the ultimate arbiter of the important issues, particularly those the United States is most concerned about: Iran’s nuclear program, its ballistic missile force, its export of terrorism, and its efforts to export its revolution to Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other places.

As the leader of Iran’s Islamic revolution, the Supreme Leader controls the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?the cutting edge of the regime?which suppresses political opposition, protects the regime at home and abroad, controls Iran’s ballistic missile force as well as covert nuclear efforts, and orchestrates Iran’s support for terrorist groups.

Iran’s theocratic dictatorship has constructed a façade of democracy to mask the fact that real power always has been wielded by unelected clerical leaders. It is the ayatollahs, after all, who approve which candidates are allowed to run for president.

This year, more than 1,600 male candidates announced plans to run for the presidency (women cannot run), but only six were approved by the Guardian Council, an Orwellian body that certifies that candidates reliably support the radical goals of Iran’s Islamic revolution.

The political process amounts to more of a selection than an election. The political campaign provides something of a barometer for measuring popular opinion, but it is still a small, self-perpetuating clerical elite that makes the critical decisions.

This year’s campaign focused primarily on economic issues. Many Iranians were disappointed when the lifting of economic sanctions as part of the 2015 nuclear deal did not trickle down to improve their lives—something Rouhani had promised.

This didn’t happen, in part was because Iran’s biggest trade deals were designed to benefit state-controlled industries and firms affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, who control a large chunk of the Iranian economy.

Moreover, low oil prices have depressed Iran’s oil export revenues, which are the backbone of its economy.

The regime has exacerbated the situation by funneling many of the economic dividends provided by sanctions relief into a military buildup and an increasingly costly military intervention in Syria to prop up the brutal Assad regime.

Rouhani has little control over those decisions, which are made by Ayatollah Khamenei.

In reality, Iran’s election on Friday was a charade. All it did was re-select Rouhani as president—a president in name only.

Under Iran’s revolutionary political system, Ayatollah Khamenei, the leader of the revolution, greatly outranks the leader of the Iranian state.

Khamenei, who has ruled Iran since 1989, reportedly has suffered from prostate cancer in recent years. The selection of his successor will have a greater impact on Iran’s future than the selection of any president. (For more from the author of “Iran Re-Elects Rouhani as President” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What’s at Stake in the Left’s Effort to Redefine ‘Sex’ in Pennsylvania Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

State capitals across the country are proving they are not immune to the malady that has afflicted the policy process in Washington.

The latest case in point: Pennsylvania.

In a quietly released statement issued late on a Friday afternoon, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, an agency of the state government, announced a proposal to effectively redefine the word “sex” in the state’s discrimination law to also include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” or “SOGI” for short.

This proposal wouldn’t change the law—only the commission’s “guidance” on the matter. But this new “guidance” would mean the law would be enforced as if it had changed.

This guidance comes on the heels of repeated failures to accomplish the same outcome through the legitimate way of changing laws—through the legislative process and with the consent of the governed.

It is a move that mimics the Obama administration’s executive and bureaucratic overreaches when Congress rejected LGBT demands for changes in federal law. It also represents a serious usurpation of legislative authority and an end run around our political system.

First, a little background and some history.

For more than a decade, LGBT activists have sought to add sexual orientation and gender identity language to Pennsylvania’s anti-discrimination statute. This has become one of the most hardly fought social policy efforts of the left.

Pennsylvania is certainly not unique in receiving such challenges from the social left.

It is notable, however, that Pennsylvania citizens have repeatedly been successful in stopping these proposals in the Legislature when most of the states in the northeast have not.

There are several reasons for this:

History

This diverse context has created higher sensitivity to laws that would police and sanction beliefs. Simply put, Pennsylvanians value tolerance.

Pennsylvania has a long history of tolerance, religious freedom, and protecting the rights of conscience. That heritage has drawn to the state a citizenry that represents a broad array of religious backgrounds and accepts those who are different.

Intolerance in Other States

As has been witnessed in other states, sexual orientation and gender identity laws and regulations have worked against universal tolerance. They have empowered government prosecutors and bureaucrats to force actions and speech that can cause a citizen to violate their conscience and religious convictions.

Just ask Barronelle Stuztman or Melissa Klein. Such coercive and punitive action by government undermines tolerance and only spurs division.

An Affront to Women’s Rights

Examples of this can be found across the country, whether it’s a biologically male adult changing clothes in front of girls in a swim club locker room in Seattle, or teens and children facing similar circumstances in their schools, or female school athletes seeing their opportunities for success evaporate as physical males are being allowed to compete against them.

Sexual orientation and gender identity laws have been used to suggest that restricting bathroom use by biological sex is discriminatory. This has forced policy changes that threaten bathroom personal privacy and, in some cases, safety. The result is often an affront to the rights of women.

These and other concerns, brought to the attention of Pennsylvania lawmakers by their constituents, have thus far succeeded in preventing a statewide adoption of sexual orientation and gender identity legislation.

This despite significant spending by national special interests and the hiring of some of the most powerful lobbyists in Harrisburg to pressure the House and Senate to cave.

That brings us to Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, Tom Wolf.

Wolf, named America’s most liberal governor, instigated a shakeup in the Human Relations Commission by demoting the chairman and installing a new chairman to further his agenda.

Now, in the face of a legislative stalemate, the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission is making an end run around the Legislature to impose a freedom-robbing policy through a bureaucratic agency that was founded to guard our civil liberties.

The Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission’s website, www.phrc.pa.gov, is inviting public comment on the proposed guidance via email to [email protected] through Friday, May 26.

“This change in guidance by the [Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission] effectively means a change in law, a change that would be devastating to personal privacy and religious liberty,” said Randall Wenger, chief counsel of the Independence Law Center.

“That’s why it’s important that lovers of liberty make their voice heard to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission during their public comment period.”

Lovers of the legitimate, constitutional lawmaking process may wish to chime in as well. (For more from the author of “What’s at Stake in the Left’s Effort to Redefine ‘Sex’ in Pennsylvania Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Federal Lawsuit Contends Transgenderism Is a Mental Disorder

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A Friday story from Reuters highlights a federal district court’s decision to proceed with a lawsuit from Kate Lynn Blatt – a man who imagines himself a woman – who claims that he has been discriminated against by his employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act because of his condition:

But U.S. District Judge Joseph Leeson avoided ruling on the constitutionality of the ADA, as the plaintiffs had sought, under the legal principle that courts should avoid decisions on constitutional grounds if possible. Being transgender is not considered a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association [APA], but it can give rise to gender dysphoria, a type of anxiety that may require medical treatment. Gender dysphoria forms Blatt’s basis for making a claim under the ADA. Leeson, from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found that simply being transgender would be insufficient to bring a case, but that gender dysphoria was a medical condition worthy of protection against discrimination.

According to an amicus brief from GLAD – a Massachusetts-based LGBT legal nonprofit – the explicit exclusion of “gender identity disorder” language in the 1990 version of the current law constitutes a violation of trans peoples’ constitutional rights. And that the “updated diagnosis of gender dysphoria (GD) in fact falls outside the scope of that exclusion as defined in the law,” implying that the law should be rewritten by judges as medical opinions shift.

This is where the rhetoric around the issue of transgenderism and employment law gets incredibly muddled.

There is currently another case moving through the federal circuit which makes the claim that being transgender should be held on the same grounds as race or sex. The plaintiff Kate Lynn Blatt found some receptive ears in the 7th Circuit, which went so far in its ruling to brazenly admit that it was taking the legislative task of rewriting federal discrimination law, rather than simply applying it, because Congress “may not have realized or understood the full scope of the words it chose” when it passed the law in the first place.

While this case invokes the Americans with Disabilities Act and demands protection under that statutory framework, it has the same end game of other cases that invoke federal civil rights law to claim that being transgender is no different than race or sex.

The American Psychiatric Association claims – at least according to the Reuters report – that gender dysphoria and simply being transgendered are two different things. The assertion, contrasted with the group’s own definition of the disorder, smacks of capriciousness and political correctness.

So the question then becomes whether or not imagining oneself to be a different sex than that of their biological makeup is something innate, or whether it is a mental disorder on the same tier as substance addiction or depression.

It is not something to be indulged. Nobody holds pride parades to celebrate the excesses of alcoholism, and nobody wants to inculcate grade-school children with the idea that the side-effects of schizophrenia are something to be revered and respected.

Nobody tells people with anorexia that they really are the fat person they see in the mirror, that starving themselves to make their body match their delusions is a compassionate response, and that anyone who doesn’t agree is bigoted. Rather, these are things that we view as destructive to the wellbeing of the human person — something to be addressed with charity, mercy, understanding, and, overall, some kind of correctional treatment.

So now there are two competing narratives before our judicial system. Either someone like Blatt is a woman simply because they say they are, or there is indeed a disorder at work that puts the person at odds with reality.

While some highly skilled philosophical contortionist in our court system may indeed find a way to make these two assertions work in tandem, these two assertions cannot coexist in an intellectually honest discussion. Either transgenderism is reality, or it is a disorder; it cannot be both. (For more from the author of “Federal Lawsuit Contends Transgenderism Is a Mental Disorder” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Considers Move to Devastate Obamacare

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump is considering a move that could devastate Obamacare and force lawmakers to take action to repeal the law and pass health care reform.

According to Politico, the president wants to end payments of “key Obamacare subsidies,” an action that would cause Obamacare to fall apart. Trump reportedly wants to force congressional Democrats to the negotiating table, but this sort of bold action is unpopular with some in the White House.

Many advisers oppose the move because they worry it will backfire politically if people lose their insurance or see huge premium spikes and blame the White House, the sources said. Trump has said that the bold move could force Congressional Democrats to the table to negotiate an Obamacare replacement.

Lawyers and other administration officials are trying to thread the needle.

These payments to insurance companies are worth an estimated $7 billion for this year alone. The government pays insurance companies to subsidize the cost of insuring low-income individuals. Without those subsidies, the insurance plans with regulations mandated by the government would become too expensive to offer, and insurers would be forced to exit Obamacare’s exchanges at a quicker pace.

Obamacare’s regulations and mandates caused the price of health insurance to skyrocket, making these subsidies a cornerstone of the law’s structure. The true cost of Obamacare has been hidden from the American people, like an open sore under a Band-Aid. Ending these subsidies would rip that Band-Aid off.

According to Politico, no formal decision has been made yet. Will the Washington, D.C., political class talk the president down to save their skins come election season? We’ll find out soon. (For more from the author of “Trump Considers Move to Devastate Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Christian Artists’ Free Speech: Will SCOTUS Take up Vital Issue?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Should artists be forced to promote messages against their conscience? The Supreme Court could be taking up the question soon, if a recent lower-court ruling out of Kentucky is any indication.

Late last week, news broke that the Kentucky Court of Appeals sided with Hands On Originals, a print shop in the Bluegrass State, saying that business owner Blaine Adamson did not have to engage in business that conflicts with his religious beliefs. The ruling comes five years after he told a prospective client that he could not make T-shirts for a gay pride festival in 2012.

The Associated Press has more details:

Chief Judge Joy Kramer wrote in her opinion that the city’s ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation does not prohibit the owners of Hands On Originals from “engaging in viewpoint or message censorship.” Kramer said the business objected to the message of gay pride, not anyone’s sexual orientation.

“Thus, although the menu of services HOO provides to the public is accordingly limited, and censors certain points of view, it is the same limited menu HOO offers to every customer and is not, therefore, prohibited by the fairness ordinance,” the ruling states.

The legal question at hand is one of the biggest religious liberty issues facing the country, as religious business owners have faced a number of struggles following the 2015 “Obergefell v. Hodges” gay marriage decision and a slew of state-level LGBT laws that seek to eliminate traditional beliefs on marriage, biology, and sexuality from the marketplace.

Plaintiffs argue that not creating pro-LGBT messages amounts to class-based discrimination prohibited in federal law. Proponents argue that this is inaccurate and that it constitutes abstaining from an action based on belief – a long-respected protection of the First Amendment.

The Kentucky ruling differs from other recent lower-court rulings on similar questions. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that a Christian florist was not within her rights to decline serving a same-sex wedding ceremony.

Now that the lower courts have split in their opinions, the issue is more appealing for the U.S. Supreme Court, Jim Campbell, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, tells Conservative Review. ADF is the pro-religious liberty legal nonprofit representing Blaine Adamson in Kentucky.

The case to watch now is that of owner Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, Colo. Phillips was recently turned down by the Colorado Supreme Court after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission previously found him guilty of discrimination, but it could very well be on the docket for the next judicial session in D.C.

(As ADF notes, “In contrast to the ruling against Phillips, the commission found last year that three other Denver cake artists were not guilty of creed discrimination when they declined a Christian customer’s request for a cake that reflected his religious opposition to same-sex marriage.”)

“They’re holding [the case] for two months now, which is kind of odd,” Campbell says. “Whenever they’re holding something, it obviously means that it’s caught someone’s attention. Which is a good sign … because the default is to be denied.” He says a decision on the petition could come as soon as Monday.

There are a handful of other cases that all evaluate the intersection of conscience rights, free expression, and non-discrimination that are currently working through the courts. Should the current petition on Masterpiece be denied, these cases will likely continue to work their own ways up in its stead.

But there are still many variables in this equation. Despite the messianic treatment Neil Gorsuch received from many conservatives, and as often as he is used as the go-to counter-example to complaints about Trump’s betrayals on a host of other issues (like immigration and religious liberty), one must remember that there are still eight other justices on the high bench. In replacing Antonin Scalia, the balance of the court was restored to the same makeup that gave the American people decisions like “Obergefell” and “Windsor.”

Hopeful rumors are currently buzzing around the beltway conservative enclaves about the prospect of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement this summer. If true, the vacant seat and nuclear appointment rules would give the Trump administration the ability to tip the balance of the bench in a more originalist direction, which would bode well for any of these cases. But this nothing more than speculation and rumor at this point.

A multitude of factors affect the final outcome. Will the First Amendment be weakened or buttressed in post-Obergefell America? It would appear that the answer will not have to wait very long — at least on judicial time. (For more from the author of “Christian Artists’ Free Speech: Will SCOTUS Take up Vital Issue?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Levin Gets Down to the REAL Crisis Exposed by the Media’s Leaks

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin has noticed something the mainstream, liberal media seems to be conveniently ignoring.

An exclusive report from Reuters, citing anonymous “U.S. officials,” asserts that the Trump campaign had at least 18 “undisclosed contacts with Russians” during the closing months of the 2016 presidential campaign. Buried six paragraphs down in the report is the admission that there is “no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia” from these leaked communications.

No evidence of wrongdoing by the Trump campaign. That’s because the real wrongdoing is by members of the bureaucracy illegally leaking information to the press — information, Levin points out, that could only come from one place.

Listen:

“The only way that they know this is through the domestic surveillance, oh excuse me, the incidental surveillance information and the unmasking of Flynn, among others,” Levin said. “It’s the only way they know this information that’s being leaked to Reuters.”

“Once again, I bring us back, I pull us back to what the media are exposing but don’t know they’re exposing and don’t want you to believe,” Levin said.

“This is part of the domestic surveillance that took place. This is part of the unmasking of Trump advisers, Trump transition team members, Trump campaign members, American citizens. This is part of the unmasking of American citizens and abuse of power by the prior administration being used and being leaked to the media!” (For more from the author of “Levin Gets Down to the REAL Crisis Exposed by the Media’s Leaks” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

VA Employee Convicted of DUI 3 Times Returns to Work at Memphis Medical Center

/0 Comments/in , /by

An employee at the Memphis, Tenn. Veteran’s Affairs (VA) medical center who was convicted of driving under the influence three times has returned to work as of Monday.

Brittney Lowe, a senior interior designer at the Memphis VA was convicted in 2009, 2013 and most recently in 2017 of driving under the influence and is now back working at the medical center, The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned.

Her most recent conviction took place on March 9, 2017, after which point she served a 60-day sentence.

In March, Memphis VA whistleblower Sean Higgins told Communities Digital News that Lowe was on paid leave during her sentence under the category of “donated leave,” which is usually made available to employees experiencing sickness.

But now that she’s served her 60 days in Jail, Lowe has been spotted back at work. (Read more from “VA Employee Convicted of DUI 3 Times Returns to Work at Memphis Medical Center” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clock Boy Loses yet Another Lawsuit in Battle Against School, Local Officials

/0 Comments/in , /by

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit brought by the family of Ahmed Mohamed — which alleged his high school discriminated against him when officials mistook his homemade clock for a bomb.

The Daily Mail reports the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the Mohamed family’s suit for failing to allege facts showing discriminatory or unconstitutional actions on the part of school administrators or local officials.

“Plaintiff does not allege any facts from which this court can reasonably infer that any IISD employee intentionally discriminated against Ahmed Mohamed based on his race or religion,” court documents read.

The family alleged that school administrators discriminated against Ahmed because of his religion and ethnicity — he is Sudanese and practices Islam. They also claim his detention and interrogation without access to his family or a lawyer violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Mohamed was taken into police custody after he displayed a homemade clock to teachers at MacArthur High School in Irving, Texas. Police and school officials feared the device was a bomb, though they quickly determined the gadget was harmless. (Read more from “Clock Boy Loses yet Another Lawsuit in Battle Against School, Local Officials” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Says He’s ‘Very Close’ to Naming an FBI Director

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump says he is “very close” to naming a new FBI director.

An announcement could come Friday, the soft deadline Trump set for himself. The president departs Friday on his inaugural overseas trip, a four-country, five-stop journey tour of the Middle East and Europe that will keep him out of the country for more than a week.

“We’re very close to an FBI director,” Trump said Thursday when asked about the search during an Oval Office appearance with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos. He said an announcement could come “soon” and that former Sen. Joe Lieberman was among his top candidates. (Read more from “Trump Says He’s ‘Very Close’ to Naming an FBI Director” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Double Standard for Muslims and Christians

/0 Comments/in , /by

I’m sure you’ve already seen the unfolding controversy. It seems that country singer Toby Keith agreed to sing for a gathering of the Christian group Promise Keepers. It’s an all-male group. In the name of fostering “comradeship,” the organization planned to restrict attendance to men. That’s what sparked the outrage.

Major articles appeared in Vanity Fair and the New York Times. They denounced the concert as “misogynist” and “transphobic.” Feminist groups condemned Promise-Keepers as “patriarchal woman-haters” who “use the rhetoric of theocracy and male control over women’s bodies.” The National Organization for Women threatened to launch a boycott of the state of Alabama.

Leading Alabama legislators asked state regulators to look into prohibiting the conference. The state’s Chamber of Commerce chimed in to support a ban. It warned of the need to “protect the business atmosphere here for future jobs and investment.”

Priests from the local Jesuit college, Springhill, sponsored a campus-wide “teach-in.” The topic? Female empowerment and the need for more headline female country singers, plus women in the Catholic priesthood.

Spin magazine ran a piece by the head of Toby Keith’s record label. It warned of canceling Keith’s upcoming album.

At last, within 48 hours of the concert being announced, Keith pulled out and apologized. Organizers might cancel the conference itself. Antifa protestors from colleges across the country and leaders of Black Lives Matter warned on social media that they would show up and “disrupt Promise Keepers, disrupt Trump!” Several prominent business leaders on the board of Promise Keepers have withdrawn from membership. Social media protests had targeted their companies’ shareholders and customers.

Okay, Kidding!

Now, strictly speaking, none of the above is true. Not a word.

But did you find it implausible? Or didn’t it seem exactly the way that cultural coercion plays out in today’s America — when conservatives or Christians are involved?

In fact what is happening is this: Mr. Keith is performing at an all-male concert, all right. But it is in Saudi Arabia. The concert coincides with Donald Trump’s state visit to that theocratic absolute monarchy. CNN reported on the concert. It didn’t even mention that women can’t attend. Excluded. CBS News did note the ban on both women and beer. But it didn’t seem to consider either exclusion controversial. It just noted the female ban deadpan, as if reporting on the weather. Spin magazine weighed in, but only to snark about Keith’s apparent fondness for Donald Trump.

I was only able to find one prominent voice criticizing the concert for keeping out women. Washington Post blogger Alyssa Rosenberg wrote a piece. She complained that the concert is “segregated.” She noted briefly that the Saudi government oppresses women. But even she spent more than half her column sniping at Keith for his right-leaning views.

Strict Scrutiny for Westerners, Whites, and Christians

Isn’t that funny? Why are mostly white, Western or Christian institutions subject to the strictest scrutiny? Progressives weigh their every policy against the latest list of tender sensibilities. Their every choice goes under a microscope. Does it offend one of an ever-expanding (updated hourly) list of “marginalized” groups? Any violation will be punished with maximum savagery, innocent bystanders be damned.

Muslim Autocracies Are Just Exotic and Cool

But whole countries like Saudi Arabia get a pass. Meanwhile, their record of abusing women is staggering and inhuman. Rape victims in Saudi Arabia can be flogged for committing adultery. The only loophole? If they can produce four adult male witnesses to testify that the sex was non-consensual. There is no law forbidding marital or statutory rape.

Saudi women miss out on a lot more than Toby Keith concerts. They cannot drive cars. The reasons I’ve seen listed for that vary according to the Islamic cleric cited. They range from dangers to women’s reproductive systems, to that well-known side-effect of riding over bumpy roads: insatiable sexual arousal.

Saudi Arabia regularly executes homosexuals. And Muslims who announce they are leaving Islam. Indeed, that country is one of the most aggressive on earth in employing the death penalty for a wide variety of offenses. Child marriage is common. Likewise forced marriages imposed on women by their fathers and brothers.

Christian churches, bibles, and symbols are totally prohibited. They’re even denied to the thousands of enserfed foreign workers who toil in Saudi households. Even embassies (technically foreign soil) come under the ban. Female genital mutilation is widespread in parts of the country.

None of this stopped Hillary Clinton from recruiting Huma Abedin as her “body woman” and likely chief of staff (had she won). Abedin worked with her family on a Saudi-founded and funded journal promoting Saudi-style sharia around the world. None of this stopped Georgetown University from accepting $20 million from a Saudi prince in 2008 to fund its Islamic studies program. Flashback to 1978: Would Georgetown have taken that kind of money from the Republic of South Africa, for a program on race relations?

Treating Muslims Like Mischievous Pets

There’s a powerful double standard at work. It comes to us via multiculturalism. We only hold white, Western, and especially Christian institutions to fully human standards. We treat Muslims in particular as if they were lovable, mischievous pets. The same progressives who denounce Christian churches as “patriarchal” damn critics of Islam as “Islamophobes.” That’s deeply degrading to Muslims as human beings. Much more importantly, it is dangerous to us.

Since I believe that Muslims and country singers are equally human, I’ll say it: I don’t think Toby Keith should sing in Saudi Arabia. I don’t think President Trump should visit that hell on earth, or that the U.S. should pretend that the country is an ally. Instead it is the Comintern for the new face of totalitarianism — a country that exports jihad and jihadists, that accepted zero refugees from Syria but spent millions building them mosques in Germany and Sweden, that keeps a fragile peace in its unjust society by projecting discontent outward: into the West, where we are the victims. (For more from the author of “The Double Standard for Muslims and Christians” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.