In the Divided States of America, There’s Only One Way To “Unite”

Following the attempted political assassination of several GOP members of Congress this week, calls for “unity” echoed through the halls of power.

Democratic and Republican leaders alike offered up their ruminations on the matter — ”ruminating” not in the sense of offering profound thoughts on the latest tragedy, but rather, as cows “ruminate” on regurgitated cud. That an American citizen would take the ruling class’ dishonest and hyperbolic partisanship seriously enough to actually start shooting congressmen is tough for the political class to stomach, so for now, they chew on their hopes for national unity while promising to temper their rhetoric.

Such calls for “national unity” in the wake of violence are nothing new, and as I heard this latest chorus of “Kumbaya” reverberate around the country, I couldn’t help but snicker. I couldn’t hold back my laughter because I suspect too much about American government, too much about the meanness and bad faith of contemporary American politics, too much about the very nature of human beings’ relationship to political power to take American politicos’ calls for unity, love, and respect seriously. I have nothing against unity, love, kindness, and respect (and I certainly do not condone citizens randomly shooting members of Congress), but I cannot take the power-hungry seriously when they use the language of peace and community to advance their national ambitions of political control.

Political invective, per se, is not the problem — the drive for national solutions is. Even if the political class softens their rhetoric for a time (don’t hold your breath), they will sooner or later find themselves at one another’s throats again as long as they continue to nationalize every political issue under the sun. There is too much power at stake to behave otherwise. In fact, I expect we will soon see that rhetorical game whereby partisan “uniters” criticize anyone who disagrees with their political projects as “dividers.”

Contrary to popular political opinion, “national unity” is not synonymous with basic human decency and peace among men. Quite the opposite. But as long as “our” political leaders continue to conflate the two, a cruel irony will be at work here. The more America’s political leaders try to “unite” the nation through political power at the federal level, nationalizing every issue in the process, the more divided the nation will become. The United States is too diverse to be treated as one big happy family ready to march in lockstep.

The political class’ appeals to American ‘family’ and ‘unity’ is merely a means to obscure what’s really on the agenda— an agenda that goes far beyond the purview of our actual families, villages, townships, cities, and states. The political establishment continues to falsely believe a diverse nation of 300 million-plus people, a nation of nearly 20,000 actual cities, as well as countless families and cultures, can be managed like a singular political body without negative consequences. If only we surrender more of our liberties and governing decisions to Washington D.C., says the political class, “the people” of the United States can be prodded into unity — as long as we are allowed to chew on a bit of happy talk and watch a charity baseball game.

No doubt, how we speak to one another as fellow human beings is important. Indeed, culture and rhetoric are important. And, yes, though politics may often be downstream from culture, politics can also pollute the river of culture and discourse if allowed to become too pervasive. Immense political power has a way of rendering men suspicious and jealous of one another. And once politics comes to define a people through the power of a central state, all that is left is an impending battle over whose culture will be imposed through the power of that state.

In the face of such a looming war, it is no surprise that people often despair only to hurl invective, material threats, and people see actual bullets towards “the others” as the source of their angst. In such a world dominated by national political power, it is understandable that politicos, whether elected officials or disgruntled campaign volunteers, see anyone who opposes their national projects as a threat to humanity.

But the tyrant in you is the tyrant in me, and if we are not careful — if we keep offering the American people the immense national power to command and control their fellows — even our reactions against tyranny and violence will tend to mutate into movements to destroy one another for power’s sake.

If we truly wish to unite the American people, we must abandon our greedy nationalist daydreams. We must decentralize political power away from Washington D.C. and truly embrace the diversity of the American populace. We must reduce the potential power we have over one another so that tolerance for those we disagree with may flourish absent the threat of political coercion. Let California be California. Let Texas be Texas. Let Vermont go their own way and Alabama go another way, and so on. (For more from the author of “In the Divided States of America, There’s Only One Way To “Unite” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Battle for the Permanent Fund and PFD Heats up as New Special Session Called by Gov. Walker

Alaskans are facing historic decisions on the Permanent Fund and PFD that affect every citizen in the state. The Legislature’s plans to restructure the Permanent Fund and PFD for government spending remain on the table into another Special Session. And, another decision on the PFD is on the way in the Alaska Supreme Court with the lawsuit challenging Gov. Walker’s PFD veto in 2016 scheduled for a hearing next week, June 20th in Anchorage at the Boney Courthouse.

The lawsuit was filed last September by Sen. Bill Wielechowski and former State Senators, Clem Tillion and Rick Halford against the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation and the State of Alaska. The case hinges on whether it’s legal for the Governor to veto a law that provides an automatic transfer of funds that go directly to Alaskans. If the veto challenge wins, the money cut from PFD in 2016 by the Governor’s veto will be returned to eligible Alaskans – $1032 per resident.

Besides the Governor’s veto, the PFD and Fund are also under threat from the Governor and Legislature’s restructure plans that have not been approved by a public vote. In 1999, an advisory vote was held when similar restructure plans were proposed by lawmakers. The voters rejected the restructure plan by 83%.

As owners of the Permanent Fund, Alaskans’ input and approval of changes to the Fund system is critical to protecting the Permanent Fund from government spending and mismanagement. Clem Tillion, PFD lawsuit plaintiff and former legislator, commented on this in a recent video interview. He said, “Many people who’ve moved to Alaska and received the dividend don’t realize they actually own the resource. We are a land grant state, we received 100 million acres and the People own it. The Fund is yours. If you allow it to be taken away by politicians who want to change the law, then you deserve to lose it. You should have to fight for what you have (if you are able to do so). And the fight is now. Do not let the legislators steal your dividend.”

In response to these attacks on the PFD, Alaskans are taking action with a Save the PFD Rally next week (Tues., June 20 from 11am-1pm) in front of the Boney Courthouse, 303 K. Street in Anchorage before the PFD lawsuit hearing at the Boney Courthouse (1:30pm, 5th floor). Join this family-friendly, non-partisan, rally to defend Alaskans’ shareholder rights as resource owners.

For more information on protecting the PFD and Fund to share with your neighbors, visit Permanent Fund Defenders’ website at www.pfdak.com and Facebook.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Violent Words Have Turned to Violent Deeds: The Rise of the Radical Left

From violent campus protests to the shooting of a congressman, the violent, radical left is rising. But this should not surprise us at all. The handwriting has been on the wall for years.

What else do you expect when those who believe a child should have a mother and a father are likened to the KKK, Nazis, the Taliban and ISIS? What else do you expect when Christian conservatives have been branded dangerous enemies?

To repeat what I’ve shared before,

Already in May, 2005, John McCandlish Phillips, formerly a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter, pointed out how newspapers like the Washington Post and the Times told their readers that evangelicals and traditional Catholics were engaging in a “jihad” against America.

Markos Moulitsas, founder of the radically left-leaning Dailykos.com, wrote a whole book in 2010 in which he accused conservative Christians of being the “American Taliban,” which in turn reflected the sentiments of some Californians who opposed the Proposition 8, pro-marriage bill in 2008 and who carried signs reading: Prop 8 = American Taliban; and, 52 percent = Nazi (this referred to the 52-48 percent vote in favor of Prop 8); and, Don’t Silence the Christians, Feed Them 2 the Lions.

My fellow believers, don’t stick your heads in the sand and ignore this.

People don’t just hate you. They see you as downright dangerous, and that in itself is dangerous.

Really now, do you think people who compare you to ISIS and the Nazis do not look at you as a real threat? Do you think they can hold up signs calling for you to be thrown to the lions without holding some genuine animosity towards you? And do you think that people who express themselves in such sick and ugly terms would be upset if someone actually did you harm?

Christian Conservatives are the Ultimate Target

To quote again from my previous article (which was published September, 2015, and drew on developments I had been tracking since 2004):

As Maggie Gallagher pointed out earlier this year, those who express extreme hatred towards conservative Christians in America “tend to hold relatively high levels of social power,” citing a recent book on Christianophobia by sociologists George Yancey and David A. Williamson.

And what does that hatred sound like? Gallagher quoted some of those interviewed by Yancey and Williamson:

“‘I want them all to die in a fire,’ said one man with a doctorate. ‘I would be in favor of establishing a state for them. … If not then sterilize them so they can’t breed more,’ said a middle-aged man with a master’s degree. ‘The only good Christian is a dead Christian,’ said another under-45-year-old man with a doctorate. ‘I abhor them and I wish we could do away with them,’ said a middle-aged woman with a master’s degree. ‘A tortuous death would be too good for them,’ said a college-educated man between the ages of 36 and 45. ‘They should be eradicated without hesitation or remorse,’ said an elderly woman with a master’s degree.”

To ask again: Is it any surprise that the violent words of these radical leftists have turned to violent deeds? These sentiments are chilling and disturbing, and they are indicators of what we can expect in the days ahead, with Christian conservatives being the ultimate target.

Throwing the Jailer in Jail

Remember also that the strategy for years has been one of silencing — not just refuting — the opposition. That’s why I’ve stated for more than a decade that those who came out of the closet wanted to put us in the closet. And that’s why, after critics initially mocked me for saying that, they eventually changed their tune. For some time now they’ve been saying, “Bigots like you belong in the closet!”

A few years ago during a TV interview, I mentioned the comment of a Christian attorney who said, “Mike, it goes one step farther. Those who were once put in jail for their actions will want to put us in jail.”

The reaction to that comment was almost hysterical on some leftwing websites. “You’re totally crazy, man! No one wants to put you in jail.”

Then, when Kim Davis was jailed for refusing to comply with a judge’s order, she was likened to ISIS and her prison sentence was hailed as just. So it looks like some people do want us jailed after all.

The Violence Needs to Stop

I’m aware that some of the anger towards the right has been stirred up by the rhetoric of folks like Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannapolouis. And I fully understand how divisive a candidate (and president) Donald Trump has been, further stirring the pot.

But does that explain why campuses have banned conservative journalist Ben Shapiro from speaking? Or why students engaged in violent protests against conservative intellectuals like Heather Mac Donald and Charles Murray? Or why, in 2011, the University of Central Florida only allowed me to debate a local professor on same-sex “marriage” if we paid for four armed policemen to be present?

Today’s growing violence comes as no surprise, which means that:

1. We should expose its ugly roots.

2. We should expose its bankrupt ideology.

3. We should call out those who want to silence and intimidate the opposition, challenging them instead to open debate and dialogue.

4. We should determine not to reply in kind.

Violence doesn’t stop violence, it escalates violence. And while there’s a place for self-defense, there’s no place for the rising tide of radical leftist violence. Let’s confront it before it gets worse. (For more from the author of “Violent Words Have Turned to Violent Deeds: The Rise of the Radical Left” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Experts: To Stop Global Jihad, Wage War Against Political Islam

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee brought forward a few of the nation’s premier experts on extremist ideologies this week for a hearing on “Ideology and Terror: Understanding the Tools, Tactics, and Techniques of Violent Extremism.”

America continues to wage an all-out effort to battle the forces of global jihadism, but has had little success in preventing the spread of radical Islam. So, what are we missing? Why has the West failed to stop global jihad?

The panel agreed that a new path forward — of combating political Islam (or, “Islamism”) and its state-sponsors — was needed.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a world-renowned expert on Islamic extremism, shared her thoughts on how to fight back against the Islamist epidemic.

Her testimony was based on her recently published monograph: “The Challenge of Dawa: Political Islam as Ideology and Movement.” In it, the Somali-born Dutch-American Ali discusses the link between non-violent Islamist movements and active jihadi extremism. Ali stresses that the only way to defeat the radicalism is to wage ideological war against the countries, groups, and individuals that promote political Islam.

“Political Islam is not just a religion as most Western citizens recognize the term ‘religion’ — a faith. It is also a political ideology, a legal order, and in many ways also a military doctrine,” Ali said.

The next witness called upon to deliver his testimony was Dr. John Lenczowski, president of the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C.

Lenczowksi, who served on the Reagan administration’s National Security Council specializing in Soviet affairs, discussed how to defeat the jihadist enemy through ideological warfare. Most importantly, the U.S. needs to define what victory looks like, he stressed.

“The United States has spent trillions of dollars fighting radical Islamist terrorism. We have done so by treating jihadist aggression as principally a military and intelligence problem. Yet, it is a civilizational problem,” Lenczowski said.

“To solve this problem necessitates fighting a war of ideas. The problem is that we have virtually no ideological warriors in this war.”

The Senate panel’s third witness was Asra Q. Nomani, the founder of the Muslim Reform Movement and former Wall Street Journal reporter.

Similar to Ali, the India-born Nomani explained that our enemy threat doctrine starts and ends with political Islam. The tenets of Islamism are pursued not only by groups like al-Qaida and ISIS, but also by “state sponsors of extremism” such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Iran, Nomani said.

“If you doubt whether Islamism is an extremist ideology, please recognize its central tenet: It seeks to overthrow our democracies to supplant them with Islamic governance and sharia … which, importantly, violates United States law on multiple fronts,” Nomani said.

“Political Islam threatens life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the United States, and globally. It even considers young girls attending an Ariana Grande concert ‘dangerous’ because of the freedoms they are enjoying.”

Click here for the witnesses’ full testimony. (For more from the author of “Experts: To Stop Global Jihad, Wage War Against Political Islam” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Do This If You Really Want to Save Trump From Impeachment

I’m going to give those claiming they want to save President Trump from a potential impeachment the benefit of the doubt, although at times like these I seriously wonder whether such benefit should be extended.

I mean, when someone like myself, who didn’t even vote for Trump, seems more earnest in salvaging his presidency than those who shill for him, I have to wonder if some of these people really care about the country. Or do they just want the show (see that as clicks)?

Because advising Trump to fire independent counsel Robert Mueller is arguably the single dumbest strategic advice I’ve ever heard. Beyond it dragging Trump into a credibility war he cannot possibly win versus a man with an impeccable service record (whom the Trump administration appointed in the first place), it also incentivizes Trump to do more of why he has a historically low approval rating.

It’s the political equivalent of telling a friend trying to kick a meth habit, and struggling through withdrawal, to just take a little tweak to tide him over. (When that “little tweak” is what led him to being a junkie in the first place.)

But there is something Trump can absolutely do to make this all go away — at least in the minds of anyone who would even entertain ever voting for him. And he can do it right now, before Mueller issues a single subpoena or conducts a single deposition.

Trump can take a page out of the playbook of his old friends, the Clintons, when they were besieged by scandal, and simply govern well.

Back then, we caught a president committing a crime on tape. Yet most Americans simply shrugged and said, “Why should I care more than his wife does?” They did so because we were in the midst of a robust economic recovery, primarily fueled by the dot.com boom, when the economy was growing three times the current rate.

In other words, the people didn’t want to rock the boat while things were going well. That is especially so since that Al Gore guy would then take over, and he actually believes that crazy economy-killing environmentalist wacko stuff Bubba only paid lip service to.

Since then, the American people’s overall disdain for their political class has only grown. And their expectations for their politicians have eroded all the more as a result — to the point the character of our leaders is largely irrelevant now. Not even those supposedly Sola Scriptura fundamentalist Christians believe character counts anymore.

I don’t approve of that, and I wish that wasn’t the case. But I also wish I had six-pack abs, too. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in politics, it’s that you can’t change an environment any more than you change the weather forecast. So when the meteorologist tells you winter is coming, you can either howl at the monitor or equip yourself to thrive in that environment.

Instead of encouraging Trump to pursue a course of action that will likely end with him before Speaker Pelosi’s Congress pressing impeachment in 2019, supporters of the president should be urging him to use this cynical environment to his advantage. See, the vast majority of those who voted for Trump knew he wasn’t Mr. Virtue. They did so because the other damaged option, Hillary Clinton, would use government as the means to damage them as well.

This is the reason so many Trump voters aren’t moved by his alleged misbehavior. Most who voted for Trump aren’t in this because of his notorious cult of personality, but “because Hillary.” And when your primary investment in a politician is who they aren’t rather than whom they are, you didn’t really have expectations to begin with.

Thus, if Trump just does what he promised to do – repeal Obamacare, cut taxes, protect the border, and kill lots of terrorists – names like Comey and Mueller will simply pass into the Netherrealm of the comments sections of the lefty blogosphere. The rest of America will simply shrug their shoulders and say, “They’re all crooks anyway, but this one at least leaves me alone and kills the bad guys before they kill us.”

I want Trump’s presidency to be successful, regardless of my reservations, for he makes decisions each day that could determine our kids’ futures. If I wanted my previous NeverTrump stance vindicated, I’d just sit by and say nothing while he chose the road to political perdition, and then pridefully utter, “I told you so.”

However, Trump has done some good things when it comes to judicial appointments (I hope), the regulatory state, and foreign policy I’d like him to continue doing. But the odds he’ll get to do so decline every day his focus isn’t on good governing. (For more from the author of “Do This If You Really Want to Save Trump From Impeachment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Facebook Plans to Use Artificial Intelligence to Review for Extremist Posts

Facebook announced Thursday that it plans to use artificial intelligence to help remove inappropriate content from the social media platform.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a post that the efforts will be directed at removing terrorist content, but suggested that other “controversial posts” could be removed too.

Noting that human reporting does not always catch terrorist posts in a timely fashion, he explained, “That’s why we’re also building artificial intelligence that lets us find potential terrorist content and accounts faster than people can.”

The software uses “natural language understanding” and “image matching” to find content. “And when we identify pages, groups, posts or profiles that support terrorism, we use algorithms to find related material across our platform.”

“There’s an area of real debate about how much we want AI filtering posts on Facebook,” Zuckerberg conceded. “It’s a debate we have all the time and won’t be decided for years to come. But in the case of terrorism, I think there’s a strong argument that AI can help keep our community safe and so we have a responsibility to pursue it.”

The CEO also announced the launch of Facebook’s “Hard Questions” blog, which will tackle such issues as:

How much should we monitor and remove controversial posts, and who gets to decide what’s controversial?

How do we make sure social media is good for democracy?

How aggressively should social media companies monitor and remove controversial posts and images from their platforms?

Who gets to decide what’s controversial, especially in a global community with a multitude of cultural norms?

Who gets to define what’s false news — and what’s simply controversial political speech?

In a post to which Zuckerberg linked in announcing the blog, Facebook’s vice president for public policy and communications, Elliot Schrage, further elaborated that it will be a place for the social media giant to explain its editorial decisions.

“As we proceed, we certainly don’t expect everyone to agree with all the choices we make. We don’t always agree internally,” wrote Scharage. “We’re also learning over time, and sometimes we get it wrong. But even when you’re skeptical of our choices, we hope these posts give a better sense of how we approach them — and how seriously we take them.”

During the presidential election in May 2016, the tech blog Gizmodo broke a story, based on reports by former Facebook news curators, that the platform regularly suppressed conservative news and injected liberal topics into its “trending” news section.

Zuckerberg strongly denied that Facebook engaged in this practice.

“We have found no evidence that this report is true. If we find anything against our principles, you have my commitment that we will take additional steps to address it,” he responded at the time.

To further reassure conservatives that Facebook is playing the fair online arbiter, the company invited various conservative personalities to its headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., that month.

After Donald Trump’s upset victory of Hillary Clinton last fall, Facebook faced criticism for allowing purveyors of so-called “fake news” to flourish, which supposedly helped swing the election in Trump’s favor.

Zuckerberg wrote a post on Facebook days after the election expressing his doubts that his platform played any such role.

“Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99 percent of what people see is authentic,” he related. “Only a very small amount is fake news and hoaxes. The hoaxes that do exist are not limited to one partisan view, or even to politics. Overall, this makes it extremely unlikely hoaxes changed the outcome of this election in one direction or the other.”

He added, “We have already launched work enabling our community to flag hoaxes and fake news, and there is more we can do here. We have made progress, and we will continue to work on this to improve further.”

The clear danger in trying to identify and remove “fake news” lies in using that as a guise to take down content with which the Facebook editors do not agree.

Liftable Media CEO Patrick Brown commended Facebook following the presidential election for its “insistence upon free and open dialogue and debate.”

He contended that “fake news has suddenly come to the foreground for one main reason. For many years the same few media entities have largely controlled the media discourse in this country. This includes the major TV networks, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. They have decided what is newsworthy, what is worthy of discussion, and, ultimately, what is ‘true.’”

Joe Miller, publisher of Restoring Liberty — the most popular political blog in Alaska — conjectured that Facebook’s use of artificial intelligence may be employed to give it cover.

“Given Facebook’s atrocious past track record in suppressing free speech under the guise of ‘social responsibility,’ its new hybrid approach involving artificial intelligence is probably just a thinly-disguised way to shift direct responsibility for political manipulation away from Zuckerberg,” said Miller.

Shaun Hair, Liftable’s vice president of digital content, said, “The stated good intentions of Facebook still assumes that they are worthy to hold the keys of truth for the rest of us.”

He added, “The purveyors of false news usually get shut down over time because the truth wins.” (For more from the author of “Facebook Plans to Use Artificial Intelligence to Review for Extremist Posts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The New York Times Just Attempted Suicide

The New York Times has had a leftward bias for decades. But the bias has gotten much worse in recent years. It became insufferable when Trump entered the presidential race. Like so many elite institutions who pick their employees from today’s academic consensus mills, the Times saw no reason to treat Trump fairly. To respect his voters or their concerns. Or even to sort out legitimate skepticism about Donald Trump’s attitude toward Russia. You know, from elaborate and poorly-sourced crank conspiracy theories.

And now the Times has done the unforgivable. Rep. Steve Scalise still fights for his life, his family around his hospital bed. America still processes a terrorist attack against one of its three branches of government. And the Times let its bias goad it into lying. Not just lying, libeling.

The Weekly Standard Gets it Right

I can’t improve on Mark Hemingway’s synopsis in The Weekly Standard. So let me just quote him at some length. (Do go read his piece—a scrupulous autopsy of the Times’ credibility.) Hemingway writes:

Yesterday, following the news that a Republican congressmen was shot playing baseball, along with four others, in Virginia, the New York Times wrote what one conservative website is calling the “Worst Editorial In Human History.” Discussion of it has dominated social media, and even a number of notable liberal pundits are appalled.

Here’s the original masthead editorial from the Times:

Not all the details are known yet about what happened in Virginia, but a sickeningly familiar pattern is emerging in the assault: The sniper, James Hodgkinson, who was killed by Capitol Police officers, was surely deranged, and his derangement had found its fuel in politics. Mr. Hodgkinson was a Bernie Sanders supporter and campaign volunteer virulently opposed to President Trump. He posted many anti-Trump messages on social media, including one in March that said “Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.

Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.

After a firestorm of criticism, the Times released a brief, incomplete correction:

An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.

Hemingway unpacks that:

Just to recap, Sarah Palin and Tea Partiers were blamed widely for incitement in the media in the immediate aftermath of the Giffords shooting (quite notably in the pages of the Times), even though it was apparent on the day of the shooting that Jared Lee Loughner was paranoid schizophrenic who believed that grammar was a conspiracy to keep people from thinking correct thoughts, a man with no rational political beliefs.

Further, there’s absolutely no evidence that he ever saw the map circulated by Sarah Palin’s political action committee, and the idea that using cross hairs on a map to rhetorically “target” politicians for defeat counts as an incitement to violence is absurd. Politics, like everything else, is full of martial metaphors—”campaign” is a term borrowed from war.

Despite this, two years after the Giffords shooting and long after we knew all about Loughner’s motivations (or lack thereof), a news story in the Times noted that “many criticized Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential nominee, for using cross hairs on her Web site to identify Democrats like Ms. Giffords who she said should be defeated for re-election,” without noting there’s no link between Loughner and Palin.

Can You Get Fired for Libel Anymore?

Let’s review. The New York Times

distorted the truth about a vicious attack on a U.S. congresswoman.

Attributed real political views to a raving, bipartisan psychotic.

Blamed the attack on a conservative Christian U.S. politician.

It did so on zero evidence, out of clear partisan animus.

All to deflect attention from a murder attempt against a dozen Republican congressmen.

That meets the standard for libel in my book. I’ve read that Gov. Palin is considering a lawsuit, and I hope that she pursues it. The key criterion in court is that the story show “reckless indifference to the truth,” and evidence of malice. The Times managed to check both boxes.

Keep in mind that this is a paper which years back met charges of rampant bias by appointing an independent “Public Editor” to supervise its content. They just dismissed him as unnecessary. Oops.

Journalistic Malpractice

This is not just an instance of left-wing bias. It is a journalistic scandal. To see how profound it is, turn things around. Imagine if:

Some pro-lifer had shot at Supreme Court justices, shouting, “I want to kill all the pro-Roe judges!”

Then the next day Fox News tried to deflect the political fallout by citing the violence committed by some drooling meth-addict with a Hillary Clinton bumper sticker.

And it blamed Clinton for inciting him.

That’s how unhinged are the minds, cankered the souls, that produced that masthead editorial in the New York Times.

The New York Times should do more than publish some bland, incomplete retraction. It should fire every member of the editorial board who approved that toxic and cruel editorial. The Times should apologize to Governor Palin, and give her a weekly Op-Ed column for six months. It should then try to locate some fair-minded liberals. Writers with a deep respect for the truth and some emotional distance. Then appoint them instead to run its editorial page.

They will be hard to find. The “elite” schools that produce such writers have abandoned objectivity, fairness, free speech, and other Western values as products of the white male patriarchy. Scholars at such schools routinely denounce biology and even physics for failing to reflect their leftist agenda. (Follow New Real Peer Review for dozens of such instances.) Instead, students learn a deep-seated relativism toward facts, science, and morals. The only anchor that guides them is naked political aggression, the will to power. The opportunity to crush the morally loathsome, “deplorable” opponent. That’s the hiring pool for the New York Times and most other media.

And that’s how you end up printing libel in the nation’s “paper of record.” (For more from the author of “The New York Times Just Attempted Suicide” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Despite Alaska’s Fiscal Crisis, Republicans Vote to Restore Funding to Planned Parenthood; Rep. DeLena Johnson Betrays Pro-Lifers

Wednesday afternoon, in a brazen disregard for the lives of the preborn and good stewardship of your money, the Alaska State House voted to give Planned Parenthood an extra nearly million dollars from the state’s capital budget.

The Senate had previously passed the capital budget (SB23) without the funding for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest child killing chain. Democrat leadership in the House then added it into the bill. On Wednesday afternoon, Rep. Eastman moved an amendment to strip the money out of the capital budget. The amendment failed 28 to 12 with many Republicans voting to keep Planned Parenthood’s blood money in the budget

You can watch the floor debate here.

I want to focus on one legislator in particular who betrayed the pro-life movement – Palmer Rep. DeLena Johnson. Rep. Johnson came to us last summer seeking the Alaska Right to Life endorsement to help her get elected. Here is a copy of her signed Personhood affirmation and promises to us.

Not only has Rep. Johnson voted to give Planned Parenthood an extra million dollars, but she also refused to keep her commitment to co-sponsor HB250 the Life at Conception Act of 2017. This is the first bill in Alaska history that will give total protection to the preborn.

Politicians often give lip service to the pro-life movement during election season but shove us to the back of the bus during legislative season. This is why Alaska Right to Life requires a signed Personhood affirmation before candidates are considered for endorsement. Because of Rep. Johnson’s promises to us, we did grant her an endorsement. This is a completely brazen betrayal of her commitment!

We can’t let this betrayal go unpunished or the pro-life movement will never be taken seriously.

Contact Rep. Johnson and let her know how disappointed you are:
Representative DeLena Johnson
Email: [email protected]
Toll-Free: 866-465-4958

Planned Parenthood’s puppets have already started spreading the lie that a judge ordered the payment therefore we have to give Planned Parenthood this money. This will be the line many politician will peddle to obfuscate their complicity. The Constitution gives the legislature the purse strings for a reason. It’s called “separation of powers”. The truth is that Planned Parenthood only gets this money if the legislature willing votes to give it to them. Period.

Here is Alaska Right to Life’s position statement sent to legislators before the vote. They were duly warned.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Religious Adoption Agencies Can Reject LGBT Parents in Texas

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill allowing faith-based foster care and adoption agencies to deny LGBT parents Thursday.

Abbott signed HB 3859 into law, effectively protecting faith-based agencies from being sued for choosing not to place children with gay, lesbian, transgender or other LGBT couples.

Democrats argue the bill is redundant because the law already protects the rights of faith-based agencies to make child placement decisions based on an agency’s religion. The new law, however, further ensures that the state cannot sue agencies for denying potential parents based on religious criteria.

State Rep. James Frank, author of the bill, said it would not only defend the rights of religious agencies, but also help solve the housing crisis that plagues the foster and adoption systems.

“This is a defensive bill. It allows everyone to participate,” said Frank. “It requires [Child Protective Services] to maintain a diverse network of homes and provides reasonable accommodations to those who are helping solve our foster care capacity crisis.” (Read more from “Religious Adoption Agencies Can Reject LGBT Parents in Texas” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Russia Claims It Killed ISIS Leader Baghdadi in Airstrike

The Russian defense ministry claims to have killed Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a May 28 airstrike in Raqqa, Syria.

Russian forces in Syria launched the airstrike after receiving intelligence that ISIS leaders were planning a meeting in the outskirts of Raqqa.

“According to the information that is being verified through various channels, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi also attended the meeting and was killed in the airstrike,” the ministry said in a statement Friday, according to the Associated Press.

In addition to several senior ISIS leaders, Russia estimates around 30 field commanders and 300 personal guards were killed in the strike.

The ministry claims it informed the U.S. of the airstrike in advance. Air Force Col. John Dorrian, the spokesman of the U.S.-led coalition, said he could not confirm the Russian report of Baghdadi’s death. (Read more from “Russia Claims It Killed ISIS Leader Baghdadi in Airstrike” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.