Fourth Man Accuses Seattle Mayor of Paying Him for Sex

/0 Comments/in , /by

A fourth man has accused Seattle Mayor Ed Murray of paying him for sex after being introduced to Murray as a teenager.

A Murray spokesman denied the latest allegations, made in a court filing late Tuesday, calling them a “sensational media stunt.” The mayor’s lawyers Wednesday morning redoubled their effort to get a judge to sanction the attorney who submitted the new court filing and is representing another man who filed a lawsuit last month.

The new accuser, 44-year-old Maurice Jones, said in a sworn court declaration he was introduced to Murray by Delvonn Heckard, the Kent man who filed last month’s lawsuit claiming Murray sexually abused him as a teenager in the 1980s.

Jones’ declaration, filed in King County Superior Court, was brief, saying he had been to Murray’s Capitol Hill apartment at an unspecified time and that Murray “gave me money for sex.” (Read more from “Fourth Man Accuses Seattle Mayor Ed Murray of Paying Him for Sex” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Expected to Unveil Massive New Protections for Religious Freedom Thursday

/0 Comments/in , /by

A leaked copy of a draft executive order titled “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” obtained by The Investigative Fund and The Nation, reveals sweeping plans by the Trump administration . . .

The four-page draft order, a copy of which is currently circulating among federal staff and advocacy organizations, construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers “any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations,” and protects “religious freedom” in every walk of life: “when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.”

The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act. The White House did not respond to requests for comment, but when asked Monday about whether a religious freedom executive order was in the works, White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters, “I’m not getting ahead of the executive orders that we may or may not issue. There is a lot of executive orders, a lot of things that the president has talked about and will continue to fulfill, but we have nothing on that front now.”

Language in the draft document specifically protects the tax-exempt status of any organization that “believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.”

[Legal experts described the] breadth of the draft order . . . as “sweeping” and “staggering” . . . (Read more from “Trump Expected to Unveil Massive New Protections for Religious Freedom Thursday” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pence: WH Still Weighing Jerusalem Embassy Move

/0 Comments/in , /by

Vice President Mike Pence said Tuesday the White House continues to give “serious consideration” to moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

And President Donald Trump is “personally committed to resolving the Israeli and Palestinian conflict” and is “making valuable progress” toward that goal, Pence said at an Israeli Independence Day commemoration.

Like most countries, the United States maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv because Israelis and Palestinians have competing claims to Jerusalem. Israel considers Jerusalem its undivided capital but Palestinians seek east Jerusalem for the capital of a future state. (Read more from “Pence: WH Still Weighing Jerusalem Embassy Move” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Jim DeMint Remains Defiant After Heritage Foundation Ouster

/0 Comments/in , /by

Ousted Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint was defiant Tuesday, saying that his work at the conservative think tank helped shape many of President Donald Trump’s core ideas.

“When I came to Heritage in 2013, I told our staff and millions of members around the country that over the next four years, we had the opportunity to lead a resurgence of conservative policies and communications to win the hearts and minds of the American people,” DeMint, 65, a former South Carolina Republican senator, told Politico in an interview.

“I’m grateful to have worked with some of the greatest minds and talents in America and believe we’ve accomplished together what we set out to do.”

Heritage’s 22-member board voted to remove DeMint Tuesday, capping speculation since last week about his future with the organization.

He later released, through a spokesman, his own assessment of his helm at the foundation, Politico reports. (Read more from “Jim DeMint Remains Defiant After Heritage Foundation Ouster” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Omnibus Violates Trump Promises With Bad Immigration Provisions

/0 Comments/in , /by

If the November election was analogous to conservatives recovering possession of the ball, this pending budget bill is the moment the president throws an interception. Unless, of course, he does the right thing and vetoes it.

Not only does this bill fund liberal priorities, including refugee resettlement, Obama’s amnesty, and sanctuary cities, it contains a number of odious provisions that weaken current law on immigration. We have already observed how this bill essentially weakens Trump’s leverage to even commence construction on a border wall while funding border security in other countries. However, there are a number of additional provisions that violate the president’s core campaign promises as well.

MORE IMMIGRATION FROM AFGHANISTAN

While fully funding the refugee program and failing to codify Trump’s executive order against judicial tyranny, this bill actually increases immigration from the Middle East. Sec. 7083 (p. 1447) increases the number of Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) for Afghanis by 2,500 – from 8,500 to 11,000. As we’ve written before, this has been a priority of liberal Republicans and Democrat in the Senate, even though we’ve had vetting problems with the families of interpreters and contractors. Remember, the Bowling Green bomb-plotters were Iraqi SIVs who were caught trying to blow up the soldiers they worked for.

Congress already added an additional 3,000 visas for these individuals plus an unlimited number for family members in the FY 2016 NDAA. Most of those visas have not even been issued yet. So why would Congress open the floodgates for even more visas at a cost of several hundred million dollars? Remember, SIV recipients are treated like refugees and are immediately eligible for all social entitlement and resettlement programs. They are also permitted to bring in an unlimited number of spouses and children. In recent years, the program has been expanded for other support members beyond interpreters or those helping our soldiers on the front lines – and this program is in addition to a separate visa program specifically for interpreters. Moreover, after 15 years of failure in Afghanistan, we are fighting for a corrupt Sharia government. Now we have nothing to show for it but more immigrants who, by and large, are strict adherents to Sharia.

Moreover, with the endless flow of immigration from the Middle East, why wouldn’t they at least cut other areas of immigration, such as the Syrian refugees who are arriving in the hundreds every month? Since Trump is apparently refusing to use the budget to codify his order for a moratorium from the Middle East, is it too much to ask that he not increase immigration?

GUTS 287G COOPERATION WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

One of the cornerstones of interior enforcement is the 287g program, which allows federal immigration officials to work with local law enforcement to apprehend illegal aliens. Obama terminated the program as part of his illegal amnesty, but Trump reinstated it by executive order. Sec. 210 (p. 684) of the omnibus prohibits these agreements if the DHS Inspector General determines that the terms of the agreement governing the delegation of authority have been “materially violated.” This provision was clearly inserted by Democrats who feel there might be an avenue through which they can get the IG to throw cold water on this vital program.

CREATES STATE DEPARTMENT SLUSH FUND FOR LIBERAL BUREAUCRATS TO BRING IN MORE REFUGEES

Section 7081 (p. 1443) of the omnibus essentially creates a slush fund for the Bureau of Consular Affairs within the State Department to use the fees it collects from visas as a permanent funding source from year to year.

While a number of agencies are somewhat “self-funded” by their own administration of fees, those funds are either deposited directly into the general treasury or are credited against the amount of appropriations they receive. For example, if an agency receives $50 million in appropriations but collects $20 million in fees, it can only draw $30 million from the Treasury. Moreover, it can’t use the funds from year to year. This is necessary so that agencies are fully controlled by Congress for every fiscal year rather than becoming rogue entities that self-fund outside Article I powers.

This bill, on the other hand, gives the State Department a full slush fund, in addition to appropriations, from which the funds can be transferred for other purposes.

In a normal administration, one would assume that the White House would control the direction of the agencies. But we have already seen that the White House is either unwilling or unable to stop the State Department from bringing in 900 refugees a week (which is not even required by the lawless courts). Clearly, the same personnel from Obama’s administration remain in place. Thanks to this provision in the omnibus, there will be a new revenue incentive for the agency to bring in as many visas as possible and use the extra funds to push the limits on refugee resettlement and other visa categories.

Thus, at the same time Congress is rescinding funds for the border wall, it is offering an extra slush fund with more flexibility to bring in even more refugees. This bill contains several other provisions that direct policy, even though it’s a spending bill — but not any conservative priorities.

THE SOFT BIGOTRY OF LOW EXPECTATIONS

Amazingly, OMB director Mick Mulvaney praised the budget and excused the problems by asking rhetorically, “Can you imagine how different this bill is from what the bill that President Obama would have signed back in September?”

This is part of a disturbing trend I’m noticing among some conservatives, in which they have such low expectations for success that they excuse away every act of political adultery by Trump and congressional Republicans by comparing it to what we would have gotten with Obama or Hillary. There is no sense of context, proportionality, and expectations in these excuses. (See my full podcast on realistic expectations vs. absurd excuses). Taking this reasoning to its logical conclusion, one could excuse away a Republican issuing amnesty by suggesting the Democrat would have amnestied more illegals. Or “at least the Republican president only appointed five Kerry people to foreign policy positions as opposed to 10.”

The reality is there is no need or excuse for any of this. We are not asking the president to balance the budget or reform entitlements in 100 days. We are asking him merely not to pursue some of the most egregious and downright illegal policies of the Obama administration. The Iran deal, defending the contraception mandate in court, issuing Obama’s amnesty, and bailing out insurers are all illegal policies that can be terminated … simply by doing nothing. To actively continue and even champion those policies is an act of political adultery that shouting “Gorsuch!” or “Keystone pipeline!” fails to ameliorate. To sign a budget bill codifying these priorities while he fails to demand that Congress address his priorities that have been illegally assailed by the courts casts doubt on his campaign promises.

Amazingly, as it relates to the budget, there is not much room even to use “but Obama would have been worse” as an excuse. It’s hard to see how the bill would have been significantly worse had Democrats won the election.

actually, not really. and i don’t mean that snarkily. maybe modestly different. but not THAT different. https://t.co/2KY2hKoS4P

(For more from the author of “Omnibus Violates Trump Promises With Bad Immigration Provisions” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hill-Arity: Area Grandma Extremely Confused by 2016 Election

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton is still insisting that the FBI and Russia sunk her presidential campaign.

On Tuesday, the former secretary of state pointed to the letter FBI Director James Comey sent to Congress and the Wikileaks email dumps for sufficiently damaging her campaign to lose to Republican Donald Trump.

“But I was on the way to winning until the combination of Jim Comey’s letter on October 28 and Russian Wikileaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me, but got scared off,” Clinton told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour at a Women for Women International event in New York.

“And the evidence for that intervening event is I think compelling, persuasive. And so we overcame a lot, we overcame an enormous barrage of negativity, of false equivalency, and so much else.”

What planet is Hillary Clinton living on? An entire book was written detailing her failed leadership during the campaign. Hillary Clinton lost the election because she is Hillary Clinton, and there were no external circumstances that could’ve changed the outcome, as many were quick to point out:

“If the election had been on October 27, I would be your president,” Clinton said.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, madame secretary. (For more from the author of “Hill-Arity: Area Grandma Extremely Confused by 2016 Election” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Conservatives Beware: Ivanka’s Leftism Is on the Rise

/0 Comments/in , /by

There was a moment during the presidential campaign when then-candidate Donald Trump made conservative jaws drop as he defended Planned Parenthood on national TV during a Republican primary debate.

“Millions of millions of women — cervical cancer, breast cancer — are helped by Planned Parenthood,” Trump said more than a year ago on the CNN debate stage in Houston. “I would defund it because I’m pro-life, but millions of women are helped by Planned Parenthood.”

We now know, according to a New York Times interview, it was the president’s daughter, Ivanka, who convinced him to spare those kind words for the organ harvesters at Planned Parenthood.

Now off the campaign trail and in the White House, Ivanka Trump is getting a grip on government to gain greater influence with the president of the United States.

In the Times interview, Ivanka said she is “still at the early stages of learning how everything works.”

“But I know enough now to be a much more proactive voice inside the White House,” she said. She’s proactively pushing the administration left.

According to the Times, Ivanka’s liberal influence in the White House is expanding. She meets with top administration officials and even reviews President Trump’s executive orders before they are signed.

The two trade thoughts from morning until late at night, according to aides. Even though she has no government or policy experience, she plans to review some executive orders before they are signed, according to White House officials. She calls cabinet officials on issues she is interested in, recently asking the United Nations ambassador, Nikki R. Haley, about getting humanitarian aid into Syria. She set up a weekly meeting with Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary.

Ivanka, described by the Times as a “moderating force” in the White House, intends to push the administration left on climate change, immigration law enforcement, and refugee policy. She said in the interview that she has no “hidden agenda.” That’s true, as her liberal agenda in the White House is plain for all to see.

She’s already said this week that the United States may need to admit more Syrian refugees into the country. She also wants to “go beyond her father’s campaign pledge” and include both mothers and fathers in the administration’s proposal for a paid maternity leave entitlement. Early in the administration, Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner successfully defeated an executive order on religious freedom. Ivanka Trump has been a consistent voice in opposition to conservative policies.

All the while, she has held secret meetings with liberal special interest groups – including Planned Parenthood – for their input on policy coming from the White House. And she gets alone time with the president to pitch those liberal ideas.

“A lot of their real interactions happen when it’s just the two of them,” Ivanka’s husband Jared Kushner told the Times. Ivanka reportedly will tell other members of the president’s staff “I need 10 minutes alone with my father” when she wants to change his mind. Though not always successful, by her own admission she has “modified” some of the president’s positions.

“I’ll go to the mat on certain issues and I may still lose those,” Ivanka said. “But maybe along the way I’ve modified a position just slightly. And that’s just great.”

As Congress prepares to pass an omnibus spending bill that does not include President Trump’s campaign priorities – cutting government spending, funding the border wall, and defunding Planned Parenthood – conservatives may wonder why President Trump is not fighting harder for his priorities. Are these positions that Ivanka Trump has “modified”?

Ivanka’s outsized influence with the president speaks to the need for conservative voices in the White House. If the president continues to yield to his daughter’s liberalism, he will fail. (For more from the author of “Conservatives Beware: Ivanka’s Leftism Is on the Rise” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Salon’s Fake News: Trump Supposedly Said the Constitution Is ‘Really a Bad Thing for the Country’

/0 Comments/in , /by

The left-wing media site Salon posted an article with the headline blaring: “Donald Trump doesn’t like the ‘archaic’ Constitution: ‘It’s really a bad thing for the country.’” Other liberal sites said the same thing. It was the classic gotcha article: The man who says he’s a conservative wants to trash the Constitution! Haha, say the liberals.

The only problem: he didn’t say that.

What Trump Didn’t Say, and What He Did

Salon did the easiest thing possible — took phrases out of Trump’s Fox News interview. In fact, the interview posted with the article contradicts it.

One hint that the liberal press misquoted the president? The word “constitution” doesn’t even appear in the interview. Not even once.

So what was Trump talking about? Fox News’s Martha MacCallum asks him about his political philosophy. Trump responds that he’s “not really an ideologue.” He’s “a person of common sense.” He gets things done, he says. “I understand what has to be done, I get things done I’ve always been a closer. We don’t have a lot of closers in politics and I understand why.”

Then comes the quote that the mainstream media jumped on. “It’s a very rough system, it’s an archaic system,” he says. The Constitution? No. He continues:

You look at the rules of the Senate, even the rules of the House. The rules of the Senate, some of the things you have to go through. It’s really a bad thing for the country. In my opinion, they are archaic rules. Maybe, at some point, we’re going to have to take those rules on. For the good of the nation, things are going to have to be different. You can’t go through a process like this. It’s not fair, it forces you to make bad decisions.

What’s He Upset About?

Does Trump reject the Constitution in the interview? No, he never even mentions it. What’s he upset about? The rules of Congress, especially the Senate. He thinks those rules are “archaic.”

Trump may be flustered working with Congress, but he hasn’t deserted our system of checks and balances to become a dictator.

The fake news piece had 17,500 Facebook shares at the time this article went to publication. There has been no retraction or correction. Will Google push it down in search results? Will Facebook flag it as fake news? Probably not. (For more from the author of “Salon’s Fake News: Trump Supposedly Said the Constitution Is ‘Really a Bad Thing for the Country'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Kansas City Catholics Banish Girl Scouts and Their Cookies

/0 Comments/in , /by

There’s a new commandment for Catholics: Thou Shall Not Eat Tagalongs.

The Archdiocese of Kansas City recently announced they are severing ties with the Girl Scouts. And that means no more Girl Scout cookies, too. Say goodbye to Thin Mints and Do-Si-Do’s.

The Archdiocese says Girl Scouts is no longer a compatible partner when it comes to issues like virtue and values.

The Washington Post reports that Catholics fear the Girl Scouts’ programs and materials are “reflective of many of the troubling trends in our secular culture,” and that the organization is “no longer a compatible partner in helping us form young women with the virtues and values of the Gospel.”

The Archdiocese said some of the material used in the past has been offensive, disturbing and age-inappropriate. (Read more from “Kansas City Catholics Banish Girl Scouts and Their Cookies” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A Huffington Post Humanist Urges the Church to Stop Using the Bible as a Moral Guide

/0 Comments/in , /by

It’s one thing when a humanist attacks the Bible. That’s expected. It’s another thing when a humanist attacks a Christian denomination for using the Bible as a moral guide. But that’s exactly what humanist author Clay Farris Naff did in the Huffington Post on April 29.

Naff was upset that the highest court of the Methodist Church struck down the consecration of Bishop Karen Oliveto. Her only infraction was being married to another woman. How, he wondered, could the church punish her for love?

He writes, “To anyone free of ancient prejudices, the injustice of condemning Oliveto is plain. How can love be wrong? How can love enfolded in commitment and fidelity be wrong?”

The answers are simple and self-evident. Love is not always right, even when it’s “enfolded in commitment and fidelity.”

Marriage Has Meaning

A father may love his adult daughter in a romantic way, but that doesn’t make the relationship right. Twin brothers in their 30s may love each other in a sexual way, but that doesn’t make their sexual activity right. A man who no longer loves his wife may now love his female co-worker, but that doesn’t make his adultery right.

It’s possible, of course, that Naff has no problem with consensual adult incest or with adultery. And maybe he has no issue with polygamy or polyamory. But as a thinking man (which he clearly is), he should be able to understand that conservatives have reasons other than “ancient prejudices” for opposing gay marriage. After all, there were ancient cultures that celebrated homosexuality. Yet they still recognized marriage as male-female only.

That’s because marriage has had a specific function and purpose through the millennia. It’s not just “ancient prejudices” that cause many of us to reject its redefinition. Or is it only prejudice that believes God designed men for women and women for men? Or is it only bigotry that believes it’s best for a child to have a mom and dad?

Naff asks, “What possible harm can her marriage cause? Not even the claim of setting a ‘bad’ example holds water. People do not choose their spouses on the example set by clergy. If they did, there’d be no Catholic children, and poor, sultry Elizabeth Taylor could never have married even once.”

Actually, many people do follow the examples set by their leaders (including clergy). As for Naff’s argument regarding Catholicism, wouldn’t he argue that the sins of some pedophile priests have been especially heinous, because they are looked to as religious leaders?

Of course, I’m not comparing Oliveto’s “marriage” to her partner to a priest abusing boys. I’m simply saying that clergy have a special responsibility to set good examples. Their bad examples have a wider, ripple effect.

“Sacred Scripture” — Or Not?

Naff then focuses on the Bible itself. He uses the same hackneyed, pro-gay arguments that have been refuted time and again. (For example, he claims that Paul’s categorical prohibition against homosexual practice in Romans 1 is merely “a tirade about some unnamed people who turned their backs on God and indulged in, er, Roman-style orgies”).

He also seems oblivious to the idea that when Methodist leaders speak about “Christian teaching” on homosexuality, they don’t refer exclusively to the Bible. They’re speaking in general about the unanimous teaching of virtually all branches of Christianity for nearly 2,000 years. And they’re speaking in particular about the clear teachings of the Methodist Church throughout its history.

But this is not important for Naff. He he feels there’s a much deeper problem with the Methodist Church: hypocrisy. Why, he wonders, does the Church not ban divorce like it bans homosexual practice?

Because according to Scripture, there are some legitimate causes for divorce. These are recognized by the Methodist Church. It is remarriage that’s in question. But that’s a question he fails to ask. (He could have made a better argument had he addressed that question.)

Either way, Naff isn’t calling for a church ban on divorce. Instead, he explains:

I am trying to help you see that the Bible may be many things — historical treasure, poetical comfort, and sacred scripture — but as a moral guide, it is hopeless. Some claim to follow its commands literally, but they deceive themselves. No one can do so, for the Bible is a hodgepodge of contradictions and morally obscure or outrageous injunctions.

So, it’s fine if we take the Bible to be “sacred scripture.” But we must realize it’s “a hodgepodge of contradictions and morally obscure or outrageous injunctions.” Not to mention “hopeless” as “a moral guide.”

Thanks but no thanks.

That kind of “sacred scripture” is neither sacred nor scripture. Why anyone would take comfort in its words and find guidance for life if the Bible is what Naff describes it to be?

Bad Logic

After launching a few more (weak) salvos against the Scriptures, Naff writes:

Look at the Bible with fresh eyes, and you’ll find the record of ancient peoples who, lacking any police force, detectives, or proper jails, did their best to construct rules for getting along with each other and used the fear of God to enforce them. Look even closer and you’ll find that those in power often bent the rules in their favor. I suppose God might have wanted the people to heap silver, gold, and fatted calves on their priests, exempt them from any real work, and give them a retirement plan (Numbers 7 – 8), but I find it more likely that the priests themselves heard the Word of God that way.

Put another way, this is not the Word of God, so don’t treat it as the Word of God. Instead, Naff states:

I’ve shown that the United Methodist Church is interpreting the Bible to privilege the heterosexual majority while sanctimoniously applying ancient “laws” in a questionable way to Bishop Oliveto. But more important, I hope I’ve shown that Methodists, and all other religionists, would do well abandon the effort to apply scriptural codes to contemporary life. Draw inspiration, by all means, but recognize that the hard work of thinking through right and wrong remains a moral duty for us all.

In truth, Naff did not prove his points at all, let alone demonstrate them in such fashion that Methodist leaders should feel beholden to follow his counsel.

But it is not merely Naff’s attack on the Bible that falls short. It’s his logic that falls short as well. If he is right in his description of the Bible, there’s no reason for the Methodist Church (or any church) to exist. There’s not even a reason for a single synagogue to be found on the planet if what we call sacred Scripture is merely a compendium of human ideas, many of them flawed, and none of them perfectly inspired.

In short, if Jesus is not the Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead, Christians are believing lies. End of subject. And if the Torah was not given by God through Moses, Jews are believing lies. That’s all that needs to be said.

If the Bible is not a moral guide, it cannot be a spiritual guide, since it purports to tell us who God is and what He requires from us, His creation.

Human Reasoning vs. God’s Word

I do understand Naff’s concerns about religious fundamentalism, which he has articulated elsewhere. But he fails to understand that

1. The Bible’s moral witness is quite coherent when studied holistically and in-depth

2. Scholars have answers for the questions he has raised, along with many more

3. There are solid reasons, both practical and moral, to stand against homosexual “marriage.”

What is lacking is not the inspiration of Scripture or the wisdom of Scripture or the moral authority of Scripture. What is lacking is the understanding of human beings (including Naff). That’s exactly why we need God’s Word.

Human reasoning alone will always fail us. God’s Word will never fail. (For more from the author of “A Huffington Post Humanist Urges the Church to Stop Using the Bible as a Moral Guide” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.