Expert Who Beat Cyberattack Says He’s No Hero

/0 Comments/in , /by

A young British computer expert credited with cracking the WannaCry cyberattack told The Associated Press he doesn’t consider himself a hero but fights malware because “it’s the right thing to do.”

In his first face-to-face interview, Marcus Hutchins, who works for Los Angeles-based Kryptos Logic, said Monday that hundreds of computer experts worked throughout the weekend to fight the virus, which paralyzed computers in some 150 countries.

“I’m definitely not a hero,” he said. “I’m just someone doing my bit to stop botnets.” (Read more from “Expert Who Beat Cyberattack Says He’s No Hero” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Chelsea Manning Will Remain Active-Duty, Receive Health Care and Benefits on Release

/0 Comments/in , /by

When Chelsea Manning is released from military prison, he will remain in active duty status and be eligible for health care benefits.

Manning, who is widely known for leaking hundreds of thousands of national security documents to WikiLeaks in 2010, will leave Fort Leavenworth on May 17 and be entitled to health care, USA Today reports.

Although Manning initially entered prison as a man named Bradley, he later transitioned and adopted the name Chelsea in 2013. He attempted suicide multiple times while in confinement and complained of abuse like “routinely forced haircuts.” In 2016, Manning engaged in a hunger strike until the government agreed to provide gender transition treatment.

As one of his last moves before leaving the White House, President Barack Obama commuted Manning’s 35-year sentence, which enraged President-elect Donald Trump.

“Ungrateful TRAITOR Chelsea Manning, who should never have been released from prison, is now calling President Obama a weak leader. Terrible!” Trump tweeted January 26. (Read more from “Chelsea Manning Will Remain Active-Duty, Receive Health Care and Benefits on Release” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

In New Russia Stir, White House and Allies Call Leaks to Media Real Problem

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump’s Oval Office conversation with two Russian officials last week was “wholly appropriate,” national security adviser H.R. McMaster said Tuesday, expanding on his previous explanation about classified information shared by the president.

When Trump met with the Russians, McMaster said, he was in the room along with deputy national security adviser Dina Powell and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

“None of us felt in any way that conversation was inappropriate,” McMaster told reporters in the White House press briefing room.

Trump talked with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about the Islamic State and aviation safety issues in what McMaster said was the “context” of a broader conversation about security and terrorism.

“That conversation was wholly appropriate to the conversation and wholly appropriate with the expectations of our intelligence partners,” McMaster said, adding, “The president in no way undermined sources or methods in the course of this conversation.”

The Washington Post first reported the conversation and concerns about it among some intelligence officials.

McMaster said the “real issue” is the threat to national security by those leaking classified information to The Washington Post and other media outlets.

“It’s incumbent on all of us to bring in the people with the right mandate and the right authorities to take a look at how this leak occurred and how other breaches may have occurred as well,” he said.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters during an off-camera briefing that there is “clearly a pattern” of agenda-driven leaks within the government.

Trump’s sharing of the information with the Russian officials, Spicer added, was appropriate because it was about “a common threat and one we have a common goal in eradicating.”

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog on government, was drafting a request under the Freedom of Information Act to investigate the matter, said Tom Fitton, the group’s president. Fitton said he agrees that the leaking should be a matter for concern.

“The president conveyed information to the Russian ambassador [and foreign minister] that he felt was appropriate,” Fitton told The Daily Signal in a phone interview, adding:

The real question is, who illegally leaked classified information? … Let’s say Russia could have drawn conclusions from this information. What if they didn’t figure it out? They sure will now, thanks to The Washington Post and New York Times.”

Trump made a significant issue during the presidential campaign of the potential compromise of classified information because Hillary Clinton conducted official business as secretary of state over a private email server.

Last July, the State Department determined it wouldn’t make 22 emails on Clinton’s private server public because they were “top secret” and contained highly classified information. This raised clear legal questions about her sending and receiving classified information.

“There is no comparison. Clinton kept classified information on an illegal server and spread that classified information around,” Fitton said. “The most die-hard anti-Trump people can’t allege he broke the law. She clearly did.”

It’s a difficult comparison to make, said Craig Shirley, a presidential historian whose most recent book is “Reagan Rising.”

“Both sides will be dug in with no appreciable loss or gain,” Shirley told The Daily Signal in a phone interview, adding:

Trump supporters will continue to say Hillary endangered national security more with her email server. Democrats will continue to say Trump endangered national security more by sharing with the Russians. Both sides will just keep wailing and it’s probably irrelevant, aside from what the public’s mind comes up with.

National leaders typically keep secrets even from strategic partners or allies, Shirley added. During the storied close alliance between President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, he said, “They still didn’t reveal everything to each other.”

Shirley dismissed the media’s constant comparing of Trump’s actions with the Watergate scandal. But, he said he sees similarities between Trump and former President Richard Nixon in that Trump and his White House lose control of the storyline and spend so much time reacting:

I more fully reject the comparison between Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan. Reagan never went out of his way to make enemies. Nixon did go out of his way to make enemies, and eventually had no one left. Trump needs to stop going out of his way to make enemies.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal watchdog group, said Trump’s sharing of the classified information with the Russians is part of a larger independent investigation that must occur.

“The president’s action raises serious questions about his relationship with Russia,” spokesman Jordan Libowitz told The Daily Signal in an email. “We know that there is Russia-related business in his tax returns; it’s time that he reveals to the American people just what his business interests with Russia are.”

Presidential historians note that executive privilege regarding high-level conversations is broad.

Ideally, a process would exist for a president to declassify and share information, but such a process isn’t required, said Lee Edwards, a distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation.

Edwards said he isn’t sure of a specific parallel, but noted that Reagan, against the advice of his advisers and Cabinet, wrote a letter to Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev seeking dialogue.

He said House and Senate intelligence committees have legitimate questions to review as to whether Trump’s sharing of information put the intelligence agents of the U.S. or its allies in harm’s way.

“If The Washington Post story is true, it’s possible that President Trump did inadvertently compromise [an] important intelligence source,” Lee told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “That would make it complicated for whatever the nation, [whether] Israel or Saudi Arabia, that might have provided the information.” (For more from the author of “In New Russia Stir, White House and Allies Call Leaks to Media Real Problem” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judges Who Fret Over Trump’s Motives Are Ignoring US Judicial History

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump’s revised executive order on immigration is back in court, and therefore back in the news.

On Monday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on the order’s constitutionality. Opponents of the order claim that it violates the Establishment Clause by setting up a ban on Muslim immigration.

This argument seems strange, since the order does not purport to do any such thing, and in fact applies only to a handful of predominantly Muslim countries for only a short period of time.

Some lower courts, however, have held the order unconstitutional—not because of what it says and does, but because of things Trump said on the campaign trail last year.

In essence, these courts have gone beyond the words of the order itself and claim to have found an impermissible, anti-Muslim intention behind it in the mind of the president.

In taking this interpretive path, the judges in question have followed an example set by the Supreme Court in some recent Establishment Clause cases.

But as I explain at greater length in an issue brief for The Heritage Foundation, there is an older, more venerable, safer tradition that counsels against judges making such an inquiry.

Under the leadership of John Marshall, “the great chief justice,” the early Supreme Court declined to look beyond the words of the law to the personal intentions of its authors.

In Fletcher v. Peck (1810), the Court refused to say that a state law providing for the sale of public lands could be held invalid because of the corrupt motives of the legislators.

After all, Marshall pointed out, it would be difficult if not impossible for a court to say how far such corruption had to extend in order to justify an invalidation of the law.

In Sturgis v. Crowninshield (1819), the Court declined an invitation to interpret the Contracts Clause—not on the basis of its rather expansive wording, but instead on the narrower immediate intentions of those who wrote it.

While Marshall conceded that “the spirit of an instrument” must be “respected not less than its letter,” he also admonished that “the spirit is to be collected chiefly from its words.”

We might ask why modern courts should follow Marshall in declining to look into the personal intentions of the lawmaker. The answer is that preservation of the rule of law requires such judicial modesty.

Rule of law does not mean rule by judges acting on their whims. Rather, it means that cases will be determined on the basis of objective information examined through accepted modes of reasoning.

As Marshall suggested in Fletcher v. Peck, however, an inquiry into the subjective motives of the lawmaker quickly leads judges into a realm in which there are no clear, compelling standards of judgment.

This problem arises not only in dealing with a multiplicity of intentions, such as those that move a legislative body to action. We also confront it when dealing with a legal pronouncement—like the president’s executive order—which proceeds from one person.

After all, even the actions of a single individual are usually complex, motivated by more than one intention. It is certainly possible that in signing the executive order, Trump intended to deliver in some limited, indirect way on the “Muslim ban” about which he mused during the campaign.

But it is equally, if not more possible, that Trump also intended to make the country more safe by regulating immigration from a set of nations known to have problems with terrorism.

There can be no objective, compelling reason for a court to lay hold of the president’s impermissible motive while discounting the permissible motive.

The court can only be exerting its raw will to seize upon the impermissible motive in order to achieve a desired outcome—namely, invalidating the order.

In Federalist 78, however, Alexander Hamilton promised the nation that courts would only exercise “judgment” and not “will.”

We should therefore hope that the Ninth Circuit follows the path of judicial modesty marked out by Marshall and judge the executive order by its words—and not the endlessly debatable intentions that may lie behind it. (For more from the author of “Judges Who Fret Over Trump’s Motives Are Ignoring US Judicial History” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Let’s Hit Left-Wing Colleges Where It Hurts

/0 Comments/in , /by

Parents, taxpayers, and donors have little idea of the levels of lunacy, evil, and lawlessness that have become features of many of today’s institutions of higher learning.

Parents, taxpayers, and donors who ignore or are too lazy to find out what goes on in the name of higher education are nearly as complicit as the professors and administrators who promote or sanction the lunacy, evil, and lawlessness.

As for the term “institutions of higher learning,” we might start asking: Higher than what?

Let’s look at a tiny sample of academic lunacy.

During a campus debate, Purdue University professor David Sanders argued that a logical extension of pro-lifers’ belief that fetuses are human beings is that pictures of “a butt-naked body of a child” are child pornography.

Clemson University’s chief diversity officer, Lee Gill, who’s paid $185,000 a year to promote inclusion, provided a lesson claiming that to expect certain people to be on time is racist.

To reduce angst among snowflakes in its student body, the University of California, Hastings College of the Law has added a “Chill Zone.” The Chill Zone, located in its library, has, just as most nursery schools have, mats for naps and beanbag chairs.

Before or after a snooze, students can also use the space to do a bit of yoga or meditate.

The University of Michigan Law School helped its students weather their Trump derangement syndrome—a condition resulting from Donald Trump’s election—by enlisting the services of an “embedded psychologist” in a room full of bubbles and play dough.

To reduce pressure on law students, Joshua M. Silverstein, a law professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, thinks “every American law school ought to substantially eliminate C grades and set its good academic standing grade point average at the B- level.”

Today’s academic climate might be described as a mixture of infantilism, kindergarten, and totalitarianism. The radicals, draft dodgers, and hippies of the 1960s who are now college administrators and professors are responsible for today’s academic climate.

The infantilism should not be tolerated, but more important for the future of our nation are the totalitarianism and the “hate America” lessons being taught at many of the nation’s colleges.

For example, led by its student government leader, the University of California, Irvine’s student body voted for a motion, which the faculty approved, directing that the American flag not be on display because it makes some students uncomfortable and creates an unsafe, hostile environment.

The flag is a symbol of hate speech, according to the student government leader. He said the U.S. flag is just as offensive as Nazi and Islamic State flags and that the U.S. is the world’s most evil nation.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, New York University Provost Ulrich Baer argued:

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community.

That’s a vision that is increasingly being adopted on college campuses, and it’s leaking down to our primary and secondary levels of education.

Baer apparently believes that the test for one’s commitment to free speech comes when he balances his views with those of others.

His vision justifies the violent disruptions of speeches by Heather Mac Donald at Claremont McKenna College, Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley, and Charles Murray at Middlebury College.

Baer’s vision is totalitarian nonsense. The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when he permits people to be free to say and write those things he finds deeply offensive.

Americans who see themselves as either liberal or conservative should rise up against this totalitarian trend on America’s college campuses.

I believe the most effective way to do so is to hit these campus tyrants where it hurts the most—in the pocketbook. Lawmakers should slash budgets, and donors should keep their money in their pockets. (For more from the author of “Let’s Hit Left-Wing Colleges Where It Hurts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The 1 Change the Government Could Make to Drive Down College Prices

/0 Comments/in , /by

Over the past 20 years, the price of wireless service has fallen 46 percent, the price of software has fallen 68 percent, the price of televisions has fallen 96 percent, and the quality of these services and technologies has improved markedly.

But over that same time, the price of college tuition has risen 199 percent, and most parents would agree that the quality has not greatly improved.

But if prices typically fall as competition spurs quality advancement, as seen by the technological achievement of the last two decades, how has that not happened in education?

There is no one simple answer to this question, but the different regulatory environment facing higher education is a significant factor.

One hundred years ago, there were six regional, voluntary, nongovernmental institutions that helped universities and secondary schools coordinate curricula, degrees, and transfer credits. These institutions had no power to prevent the creation of higher education institutions.

This changed with the 1952 GI Bill.

After congressional investigators found thousands of sham colleges were created overnight to take advantage of the benefits provided in the first 1944 GI Bill, the federal government turned these voluntary institutions into accreditors.

As the federal government steadily ramped up its financial support for higher education benefits, it continued outsourcing the vetting of higher education institutions to these regional accreditors.

This makeshift system worked well for decades, but in recent years these regional accreditors have come under heavy criticism for both lax oversight over some online institutions and a heavy hand in killing some promising innovations.

No regulator is ever going to be perfect, but if they are going to be gatekeepers for a sector of the economy as important as higher education, they must be transparent and accountable to the American people.

Unfortunately, our nation’s regional accreditors are neither. They do not share how they make their accrediting decisions with anyone and their board members do not face accountability at the ballot box.

This needs to change.

That is why I have introduced the Higher Education Reform and Opportunity Act. This bill would allow states to create their own accreditation system for institutions that want to be eligible for federal financial aid dollars.

Each state could then be as open or closed to higher education innovation as they saw fit. They could even stick with their current regional accreditors if they chose to do so.

But they could also enable innovators like Purdue University President Mitch Daniels, who recently signed a deal with the online provider Kaplan University, to go even further in their mission to expand higher education access to those who had limited access before.

Our higher education system should not be held captive to 100-year-old institutions that were never intended to be regulatory gatekeepers in the first place.

Instead, we should allow those communities that want to experiment with higher education policy the freedom and accountability to do so. (For more from the author of “The 1 Change the Government Could Make to Drive Down College Prices” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Facebook Now Targeting, Suspending Pages of Ex-Muslims Who Criticize Muhammad

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Yesterday, Facebook restricted and then shut down the public pages of Ex-Muslims of North America (24k followers) and Atheist Republic (1.6 million followers) – groups that advocate secularism and provide support to “apostates” (people who leave Islam and who often face persecution).

In fact, the ex-Muslim group claims that for the last several years, Facebook has been continuously blocking groups like it. The ex-Muslims have written an open letter to the social media giant, calling on it to “to stop exercising intellectual persecution” against atheist and ex-Muslim organizations and to “whitelist” such vulnerable groups from organized false flagging attacks.

On Monday, Muhammad Syed, the president of the Ex-Muslims of North America took to Twitter to report that the Facebook pages of Ex-Muslims and Atheist Republic were restricted (and the next morning shut down) “in violation of Facebook’s community standards”. No details were given as to what standards were violated . . .

Syed believes the pages had been targeted in coordinated attacks by Muslim fundamentalists using “simple and effective” Facebook flagging tools to report that pages falsely for standards violations. Facebook, Syed said, isn’t doing enough to protect “groups vulnerable to malicious attacks”. (Read more HERE about Facebook now targetting ex-Muslims and others).

Miss USA Winner Stirs Controversy With Answers on Health Care, Feminism

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Kára McCullough was crowned Miss USA Sunday night. But before being pronounced winner, Miss District of Columbia sparked a social media controversy with two of her answers during the Q&A round.

Host Julianne Hough asked McCullough, 25, about health care.

“Do you think affordable health care for all U.S. citizens is a right or a privilege and why?”

“I’m definitely going to say it’s a privilege,” the scientist responded. McCullough works at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. She continued:

As a government employee, I am granted health care. And I see firsthand that for one, to have health care you need to have jobs, so therefore we need to continue to cultivate this environment that we’re given the opportunities to have health care as well as jobs for all the American citizens worldwide.

McCullough’s response drew cheers from the audience, but criticism on Twitter.

The Washington Post noted another of McCullough’s answers that drew ire. Host Terrence Jenkins asked McCullough, “What do you consider feminism to be, and do you consider yourself a feminist?”

McCullough said she preferred to “transpose the word feminism to equalism.” She added that she believes men and women are equal “when it comes to opportunity in the workplace.”

McCullough said she has witnessed the “impact” of leadership from women in offices and in medical science.

“As Miss USA, I would hope to promote that kind of leadership responsibility globally to so many women worldwide.”

Disappointment quickly followed on Twitter.

Other Twitter users praised McCullough for her responses to both questions.

The Post reported that McCullough helps teach children in her community about science.

“My plan is to inspire and encourage so many children and women in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields,” she said. The Post also noted that producers called her “one of the most intelligent contestants in recent memory.”

McCullough was preceded in her Miss USA title by Deshauna Barber, a U.S. Army Reserve captain. McCullough is the second consecutive representative from Washington, D.C. to win the pageant. Miss USA 2017 first runner-up was Miss New Jersey Chhavi Verg.

Watch McCullough’s full responses to the health care and feminism questions below.

(For more from the author of “Miss USA Winner Stirs Controversy With Answers on Health Care, Feminism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Christian Pastor in Bible Belt Admits Personally Worshiping Allah

/0 Comments/in , /by

A former church has been taken over and converted to a mosque in a rural North Carolina county, and a group of Christian pastors took part in the conversion ceremony in an effort to “show mutual respect” for their Muslim neighbors.

Crosses have been removed from the former church’s facade and steeple, and mosque leader Ali Muhammad turned them over to the group of pastors.

“What they were attempting to do is honor our tradition and so they wanted to turn the crosses over to us,” said the Rev. Jim Melnyk, pastor of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Smithfield, a small town in Johnston County about 45 minutes south of Raleigh. “They were reaching out to us, and we were reaching out to them.”

Melnyk said he was joined by pastors from the United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ and three different Baptist congregations at Saturday’s ceremony, which marked the official conversion of a former Pentecostal church into a mosque. One lay person from the local Presbyterian Church was also present for the “celebration.”

Melnyk told WND the mosque had reached out to the local churches through an interfaith group in Raleigh and was hoping to strike a welcoming and respectful tone for the two faiths. (Read more from “Christian Pastor in Bible Belt Admits Personally Worshiping Allah” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The People of the Bubbles

/0 Comments/in , /by

Imagine you are flying over an American suburb in Middle America, say in Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, or Pennsylvania.

You hover over a cul de sac, where kids ride tricycles and Moms share a glass of wine after work and chauffering their charges around to soccer practice.

In fact, you can see that most of the homes are inhabited by two-parent families. If you asked the parents’ primary motivation for living in suburbia, most would tell you they’ve moved for the K-12 education the local school district affords.

These families have also moved for a certain quality of life, mobility and access to grocery stores and malls. Life for many is relatively easy. Certainly there are worries: how to pay for college 10 years hence or how to fund the roofing contractor who says he can fix the worsening leak in the family room.

For good or bad, these families are living in a bubble of our society’s creation. Problems in this bubble are those of the First World.

Now imagine you are soaring over an inner city, the south side of Chicago, for example, or downtown Newark, or the east thirties in Indianapolis.

Life is harder in this bubble, where homicide is an everyday occurrence and gangs of both domestic and illegal alien lineage dominate black market commerce. Grocery stores are few and far between; liquor stores, payday loans, and bail bonds are the growth industries.

For the depressed neighborhood over which we are poised, single-parent families make up the majority of households. The single-parent route is an easy choice to make for many, incentivized as it is by government child care payments, food stamps, and WIC vouchers.

Inhabitants of the first bubble, those of suburbia, seldom cross over the perimeter of the second.

And the ability of those residing in the second bubble to permeate the membrane into the first is hampered by a lack of family support, a restricted ability to choose schools best suited for a particular student, and a societal fabric rooted in the life style of criminal gangs, drug abuse and violent crime.

With that said, residents of the second bubble can also be said to be extraordinarily wealthy compared to most.

Because if the second bubble can be thought of as an outer concentric ring to the first, it’s worth imagining that there is a third bubble outside the second.

The third circle consists of the vast majority of the world’s population. Water, basic sanitation, food and shelter are constant concerns. Disease and tribal violence have reduced the lifespan of the average third-bubble resident by a decade or two or three.

The third bubble consists of billions of people, and their plight is largely invisible to residents of the first and second circles.

Poorly educated in civics, first- and second-circle residents take for granted the magnificent compact and civil society that surrounds them with life’s every convenience. The most difficult decision some first- and second-circle residents will make on a daily basis is which of the 1800 television channels to watch at 8pm.

Our complex legal system, rooted in thousands of years of human experience, manifested itself in two magnificent legal documents that charted the course for the most successful republic in human history.

And yet there is little — and for many, no — appreciation by residents of the first and second bubbles for the masterful work of art that our nation’s highest law represents.

Demagogues of all political persuasions, men and women lacking in virtue, have placed the priorities of their party, their ethnic group, or their ahistorical social constructs, over country and principle.

Which brings me to the fourth bubble, a circle within the first. Call it the zeroth bubble.

In it are the self-proclaimed elites of government and media. The residents of the zeroth bubble reside in coastal enclaves and surrounded by elaborate systems that protect them from those who live in the first, second and third bubbles.

The residents of the zeroth bubble often secure permanent employment in the form of government sinecure or job-hopping between government, media, academia, lobbying, and public relations.

Their personal security is assured by heavily-armed forces that offer many of them around-the-clock protection.

There is little crossover from the zeroth bubble to the first. And certainly less still between the zeroth and the second.

It’s also safe to say that the device has yet to be invented that can measure the empathy that the elites feel for the residents of the third bubble.

Which helps explain why illegal immigration — from human- and drug-smuggling to MS-13 — is of no concern to the Chamber of Commerce, or your typical Senator, or Thomas Friedman of The New York Times.

The zeroth bubble people wouldn’t ever see the results of the open borders policies they espouse and support, nor can they even countenance them.

In fact, they’re sufficiently disconnected from the residents of the first bubble that they missed the entire Trump phenomenon.

The eponymous Z Man has popularized a simple dichotomy of two worlds in which the coast elites (“the cloud people”) rule over the largely invisible rabble (“the dirt people”) in flyover country.

But this view is insufficient, in my opinion.

One way to explain our country’s polarization, its angst, and its current squabbles is by imagining a set of four concentric circles, or bubbles.

Residents of each bubble lack a sufficient understanding that the other bubbles exist, and are thereby blinkered, unsympathetic, and — most of all — ungrateful.

The zeroth bubble — that of the elites — is apoplectic over its increasing and irreversible irrelevance, which explains the daily attacks on the President intertwined with its unflagging support for flatly illegal or extra-constitutional activities when the President is a Democrat.

As each bubble has become less porous and more opaque, empathy and apprecation for our society’s blessings are in very short supply.

Recognizing that the four bubbles exist is, perhaps, a step in the right direction. (For more from the author of “The People of the Bubbles” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.