Transitioning Kids to Another Gender ‘Too Risky,’ Say Obama’s Own Experts

On Tuesday, lawyers with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed a lawsuit on behalf of faith-based hospital and medical networks, and five states, against a federal regulation

that would force doctors to ignore science and their medical judgment and perform gender transition procedures on children.

Yes, on children. Now read this next part slowly:

The government does not even require Medicare and Medicaid to cover these same gender transition procedures because the Health & Human Services’ (HHS) medical experts found the risks were often too high and benefits too unclear. But any doctor citing the same evidence and their judgment in an individual case would be in violation of the new mandate and face potential lawsuits or job loss.

Correct. It’s hypocritical and agenda-laden. It’s the “other shoe dropping” in yet another HHS mandate, after the contraceptive one led to years of litigation with the Little Sisters of the Poor (for crying out loud) having to go through court hearing after court hearing on different levels of the legal system just to be able to continue to serve and care for the elderly sick and poor, without having to violate their consciences by letting their health care provider provide for contraceptives already provided for by other government programs. (Yes, it’s that simply insane.) (Read more from “Transitioning Kids to Another Gender ‘Too Risky,’ Say Obama’s Own Experts” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Soros Group Sent $1.5 Million to Help Planned Parenthood’s Fetal Harvesting PR Campaign

Liberal billionaire George Soros is one of the left’s biggest funders. And according to new documents provided by the group DCLeaks, one of his foundations sent $1.5 million to help Planned Parenthood fight allegations it was illegally profiting from harvesting fetal body parts from abortions.

Last July, The Center for Medical Progress began releasing undercover videos that exposed Planned Parenthood’s activities. The abortion mill launched a budget-blowing PR frenzy, and they needed funds to continue their pushback.

As originally reported by The Washington Free Beacon, Soros’ Open Society Policy Center (OSPC) requested $1.5 million to help Planned Parenthood’s “Fight Back Campaign.” According to the request, “in the several weeks” since the undercover videos exposing the harvesting were released in July of last week, Planned Parenthood used up nearly all of its lobbying resources…”

…[I]ts greatest need for the campaign outlined above is an immediate infusion of c4 funding. Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, has recently secured a commitment for $2 million in c3 funds, with strong prospects for more on the c3 side. Funding for lobbying activities, however, is much harder to come by, so OSPC is uniquely situated to provide a critical resources PP will have a hard time finding anywhere else.

501(c)3 organizations are nonprofits that are not allowed to engage in officially political work. 501(c)4 organizations are allowed to endorse candidates, lobby for legislation and otherwise engage politically. Like many organizations, Planned Parenthood has both.

Media Research Center reporter Katie Yoder confirmed that OSPC received its requested funding. She reported that “[i]n a Sept. 23, 2015 memo to Soros’ U.S. Programs (USP) Advisory Board (also under the umbrella of OSF), Ken Zimmerman (USP Director) and Andrea Batista Schlesinger (USP Deputy Director)” said that OSPC “’supported’ Planned Parenthood” with the requested funds.

OSPC also funded efforts to convince U.S. Catholic Bishops to highlight looser immigration policies and environmental priorities instead of marriage and abortion during Pope Francis’s 2015 visit to America. As reported by LifeSiteNews’s John-Henry Westen, documents revealed in the DCLeaks hack showed $650,000 was given to two liberal social justice groups, PICO and Faith in Public Life.

The money was used to “[f]orm partnerships with the AFL, SEIU, and 11 faith groups during the September events in order to mobilize 10,000 people to public action and train 3,500 others as messengers of Pope Francis’ economic and racial justice agenda,” among other efforts. One of those other goals was to gain “[b]uy-in of individual bishops to more publicly voice support of economic and racial justice messages in order to begin to create a critical mass of bishops who are aligned with the Pope.”

The group is also trying to undermine and overturn pro-life laws internationally, according to more documents. The pro-life country of Ireland is a top target. (For more from the author of “Soros Group Sent $1.5 Million to Help Planned Parenthood’s Fetal Harvesting PR Campaign” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Newborn Baby Girl Named After Officer Who Saved Her Life

A newborn baby girl in Texas now shares a name with the police officer that saved her life.

Officer Natisha Lucas of the Pearland Police Department responded to a medical call from a pregnant mother on Tuesday. When Lucas arrived at the scene she found the mother in shock with the newborn baby suffering from an unknown medical complication. What Officer Lucas did next saved a life. Per the police department’s Facebook post:

The mother (still in shock) directed Officer Lucas’ attention to the newly born baby who was experiencing an unknown medical complication. Officer Lucas responded by administering first aid which led to the baby responding by moving and crying. The Pearland EMS arrived on scene and assumed care for both mother and child and transported the two to Memorial Herman for medical evaluation.

When Officer Lucas later visited the mother and baby at the hospital, the mother told Lucas she had named her baby girl A’Miracle Natisha.

Mother and baby are both fine and “resting comfortably,” according to KPRC-TV.

(For more from the author of “Newborn Baby Girl Named After Officer Who Saved Her Life” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pro-Life Clinic Sues City to Get Next to Abortion Business

On July 5, pro-life pregnancy care center Hand of Hope was ready to become the pro-life neighbor of A Preferred Women’s Health Center in Raleigh, North Carolina — an abortion facility with thousands in regulatory fines under its belt.

Now, it’s suing the City Council for discrimination for not rezoning the lot next to the facility. The non-profit center paid $309,000 for the property, according to the lawsuit, and is suing on behalf of itself and the women and children its services would help.

“The City Council claimed that though it was the City’s plan to rezone the property just as Hand of Hope’s requested, it was premature to do so and that the City did not want to rezone their property,” Noel Sterett, an attorney for Hand of Hope, told The Stream.

“According to councilwoman Kay Crowder … the Council preferred to rezone Hand of Hope’s property at a later date as part of a larger commercial project rather than in a piecemeal fashion with small lots,” continued Sterett in an e-mail. “The City Council’s statement is belied by the fact that the City apparently and separately approved the rezoning of 4 one-to-two acre properties close by Hand of Hope’s property in a piecemeal fashion.”

Approved and Then Denied

Three city agencies approved Hand of Hope request for a rezoning that would allow it to be situated next to the abortion center, Sterett said — the Citizen Advisory Council, the city’s Zoning Staff and the city’s Planning Commission. The latter agency unanimously approved the rezoning after holding a hearing and finding that Hand of Hope’s use “was entirely consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan and the surrounding uses and fit into all of the City’s other land use policies or goals.”

The city’s attorney declined to comment to The Stream about the City Council’s decision, saying the city had not yet been served with the suit. But according to the minutes of the July 5, 2016 meeting where the Council’s decision was made, the council voted 7-0 against Hand of Hope because it did not want “lot by lot piecemeal nonresidential development.” The council wanted, in Crowder’s words, a “coordinated approach would produce a more efficient use of the land” producing higher tax value,” and the “Council believes that this dead-end street should be rezoned for such uses when all the properties along Woodsdale Road are rezoned.”

The city did not respond to The Stream’s question about why the abortion business was allowed on the street but Hand of Hope was not.

A Preferred Women’s Health Clinic is one of four facilities in a chain that has two locations in North Carolina and two in Georgia. According to Operation Rescue’s Cheryl Sullenger, “A Preferred Women’s Health Center has been cited by OSHA 13 times for violations categorized as ‘serious’ ones related to health. Fines levied were in excess of $12,000, indicating just how severe the violations actually were.” She told The Stream that the documents don’t give the details of the violations.

Sterett said that the abortion business “actively opposed Hand of Hope’s use,” and that “We are still investigating the relationships or known positions of the City Council members on the issue of abortion.” The abortion center did not respond to The Stream’s request for comment about its involvement in the debate over Hand of Hope’s request.

City Favoritism?

It appears a different city agency — the Raleigh Board of Adjustments — gave a different abortion facility a variance letting them put up a fence higher than the city regulations allowed. The center, according to pro-life testimony, asked for the variance after installing the fence at an illegal height.

According to the minutes of the Board’s May 9, 2016 meeting, approval was granted 4-1, thanks to employees and a volunteer for A Woman’s Choice of Raleigh Inc., who claimed the higher fence provided more privacy and other benefits for women getting abortions, as well as for employees. An opponent of the variance said the height would prevent him from recording legal violations at the facility, and another said he and his wife would be prevented from effectively offering adoption services to women going to and from it.

According to the Board of Adjustments, “The variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved.” The Board did say its “decision is subject to review for fraud, material misrepresentation, or other misconduct at the proceeding or for violations on the subject property,” and that “if such a determination is made by the Board, its prior decision may be reversed, modified, or affirmed.” (For more from the author of “Pro-Life Clinic Sues City to Get Next to Abortion Business” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What a School Letting Students Opt out of Pledge of Allegiance Says About Our Patriotism

Can America thrive as a post-patriotic society?

A Florida elementary school recently caused a stir on social media when a man posted an image of his niece’s waiver from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The waiver form asked parents if they would like to opt their child out from “standing and placing his/her right hand over his/her heart” and reciting the pledge.

The infuriated uncle wrote on Facebook, “My niece brought this home from school today…What is happening to our country?!?”

Florida students have been able to opt out of the pledge since 2000.

The just over 30-word Pledge of Allegiance, written by Francis Bellamy in 1892, received an addendum of “under God” in the 1950s under President Dwight Eisenhower, but has remained a fairly constant and little-changed staple at schools and public gatherings for over half a century. While the specific merits of the pledge have elicited opposition on the left and right over the decades, the casual and increasingly dismissive treatment of even simple patriotic acts is a symptom of deeper trends in American society.

The decline of patriotism in American life will lead to profound crisis for the world’s youngest civilization—which has been fortunate enough to maintain one of the oldest, and certainly the greatest, of political systems.

A June Gallup poll indicated that only 53 percent of adults are “extremely proud” to be Americans, a 17 percent decline since 2003. The numbers were dragged down in particular by millennials; only 34 percent of adults under the age of 30 reported being “extremely proud” to be citizens of the United States. These steadily declining numbers, more than economic malaise or any other factor, demonstrate the current fragility unity of the world’s greatest superpower.

In spite of recessions, economic setbacks, and widespread government dependency, Americans remain a dynamic and entrepreneurial people at heart. But these factors alone aren’t alleviating the fact that most Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, fueling the current populist mood of the nation.

The great French observer of American life, Alexis de Tocqueville, warned that “ … epochs sometimes occur in the life of a nation when the old customs of a people are changed, public morality is destroyed, religious belief shaken, and the spell of tradition broken.”

Tocqueville ominously wrote that the country in such a state:

… assumes a dim and dubious shape in the eyes of the citizens; they no longer behold it in the soil which they inhabit, for that soil is to them an inanimate clod; nor in the usages of their forefathers, which they have learned to regard as a debasing yoke; nor in religion, for of that they doubt; nor in the laws, which do not originate in their own authority; nor in the legislator, whom they fear and despise. The country is lost to their senses; they can discover it neither under its own nor under borrowed features, and they retire into a narrow and unenlightened selfishness.

The decline in true or even symbolic patriotism is especially bad news for a country like the United States.

The blending of disparate races, ethnicities, and religions into a lasting national identity has been one of the greatest and historically rarest triumphs of this country. Americans have traditionally embraced displays of patriotism to a degree that astounds and occasionally disturbs citizens of other countries. But it has been necessary for a civilization that has brought together so many diverse peoples under one flag.

The long-term American cultural project of assimilation is fraying and its decline could open up the cleavages that exist under the country’s surface. For most of the world, “nationalism” has symbolized ethnic identity more than love of country—in the wake of quickly declining patriotism, this will likely become the norm in the U.S. as well.

When using the phrase “land of opportunity” is labeled a “micro-aggression” by universities, and most students fail a basic civic literacy test, it is no wonder young Americans have little attachment to their country. They may learn that their only true ties are to the subgroups their leftist professors imbue with such importance, rather than to all of their fellow Americans.

While the trendy notion of being a “citizen of the world” is popular in Western, cosmopolitan societies, in a globalized world in which communities have broken down, individuals fall back on tribe or look to radical mass movements to fulfill this sense of loss.

The flippant way in which patriotism is being cast aside in this country makes it vital that Americans attempt to restore patriotic sentiment and understanding of the nation’s traditions for current and future generations. Leaders capable of articulating what has made America unique are necessary, as is a public that has a keen understanding of what ideas are at the cornerstone of the republic.

South Carolina’s new law requiring students to study the founding documents is one of many ways civic and patriotic attachment to country can be restored—and similar laws could at least provide a baseline for responsible citizenship.

In an 1894 speech, Theodore Roosevelt spoke of the need for “true Americanism” for the U.S. to be a great country. He said:

We shall never be successful over the dangers that confront us; we shall never achieve true greatness, nor reach the lofty ideal which the founders and preservers of our mighty Federal Republic have set before us, unless we are Americans in heart and soul, in spirit and purpose, keenly alive to the responsibility implied in the very name of American, and proud beyond measure of the glorious privilege of bearing it.

If the trends continue and America proceeds down the path of being a post-patriotic society, no election or economic boom will put the country back on the right track or restore sagging confidence in the country’s political institutions.

Patriotism and pride in the U.S.’ unique institutions and founding principles has been the glue holding together a country diverse in ethnic backgrounds and creeds. Without allegiance to the American experiment, we may find that our citizens choose ethnic ties or “global citizenship” as more meaningful than their hollowed out and meaningless American identity. (For more from the author of “What a School Letting Students Opt out of Pledge of Allegiance Says About Our Patriotism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fox News Hit With Lawsuit: Network ‘Sex-Fueled, Playboy Mansion-Like Cult’

Former anchor Andrea Tantaros has filed a lawsuit against Fox News Channel, asserting retaliation for lodging sexual harassment claims against former chairman Roger Ailes, The New York Times reported.

The Tantaros lawsuit, filed in Manhattan state Supreme Court Monday, also claims she was harassed by other executives at the network . . .

“Fox News masquerades as a defender of traditional family values, but behind the scenes, it operates like a sex-fueled, Playboy Mansion-like cult, steeped in intimidation, indecency, and misogyny,” the Times quoted Tantaros’ lawsuit . . .

According to published reports, some two dozen Fox News staff have since claimed harassment issues, including star host Megyn Kelly . . .

Tantaros says she complained that another Fox executive, Irena Briganti, had been attacking her. Tantaros lawsuit asserts that [Bill] Shine “told Tantaros that Briganti is like a rabid dog on a chain that we can’t control. Sometimes that dog gets off the chain.” (Read more from “Fox News Hit With Lawsuit: Network ‘Sex-Fueled, Playboy Mansion-Like Cult'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Anti-Christian Bias of Many Scientists Harms Science Itself

Last year Jean Decety and others published a study arguing that religious people tend to be less generous than others. It was paraded in many online journals as evidence of religion making people worse than they would be without it. A Google search will return many articles touting this research as proof of religious selfishness.

It did not warrant the attention. Not long after its publication I pointed out some fatal flaws in the study. In fact it was worse than I realized: I did not know at the time just how badly flawed it really was. Recently, other researchers have discovered that the original researchers did not code a key variable correctly. (For the statistically trained, I would add that the researchers coded a categorical variable — country kids lived in — as a continuous variable.) In all of my years of reading academic articles, I have never seen this mistake in a peer reviewed journal until now.

If I had a doctoral student make this mistake on a paper, I would wonder if he or she had ever taken a graduate level statistical course. Had I known the original author made such a basic mistake, I would have been harsher in my assessment.

Political Bias Skewing Scientific Responses

Still it got enormous positive attention. I contrast the support the media gave this flawed study to their response to Mark Regnerus’s work on same-sex parenting. Regnerus found evidence that children raised in same-sex parenting households may not fare as well as those in opposite-sex parenting households. For his efforts, his work was audited by an outsider critic (a most unusual move) and an investigation was requested by LGBT activists.

The American Sociological Association also went out of its way to criticize his study in a legal brief. There are activists who basically have made it their mission to try to make his life miserable. This in spite of the fact that at least some of his findings have been substantiated by other researchers.

I suspect we really do not know the full effects of same-sex parenting; we need more work to have a better sense of it. I also know that most properly conducted research has shown religious individuals to be more generous than non-religious individuals. However, my point is not that Regnerus is correct and Decety is wrong. My major point is the different way these research projects have been treated.

If Decety’s work had been scrutinized the same way as Regnerus’s work has been, we would have found his error much sooner. The study would have been quickly discredited, as it deserved to be, instead of being promoted on websites across the land.

So why were these two studies treated so differently? There is only one reason: bias. There are weaknesses in Regnerus’s work, but they pale in comparison to the miscoding miscue in Decety’s work, not to mention the other problems detailed by myself and others. So it’s not the quality of the studies that explain their differential treatments. You can put that argument to bed. One study sheds a bad light on religious persons, the other on same-sex couples; and that difference alone determined which one was more strongly critiqued.

Christians Who Distrust Science May Have Good Reasons

Within the Christian community there is a problem of mistrusting science. Part of the problem is internal: There are Christians with an anti-intellectual attitude. This is something we must confront. However, many Christians also have recognized the poor manner in which many in academia have treated them, in particular misusing the mantle of science to score political points against them. While Christians are sometimes too suspicious of scholarship, seeing conspiracy when it is not there, what we see in this Regnerus-Decety comparison is evidence that some of the mistrust is warranted.

In theory science should be a dispassionate arbiter, an objective guide in our attempts to learn about social and physical reality. Having reasons not to trust those who engage in this process makes it harder for Christians to appreciate science’s full benefits. This mistrust combined with the evidence that they will be denied a fair shake in academia at least partially explains why Christians are hesitant to become academics. So it is bad for Christians that they cannot have complete trust in science.

Christians’ Distrust Harms Science, Too

But it is also bad for academia that so many Christians mistrust science. A significant segment of our society is less supportive of scholarship, undermining the material and social support for academic research and making it more difficult to disseminate knowledge that betters our lives.

I have admitted that part of this mistrust problem is due to some of the anti-intellectual strain within Christianity. I hope some non-Christian scholars will recognize the role they, too, play through their transparently anti-Christian academic, social and political biases. If they would address that honestly it would help develop more respect for intellectual pursuits within the Christian community.

I choose to hope that non-Christian scholars will someday take the steps necessary to demonstrate objectivity and overcome their obvious biases. So far, unfortunately, I have been disappointed. (For more from the author of “The Anti-Christian Bias of Many Scientists Harms Science Itself” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Melania Trump Puts Media on Notice About False Reports

Melania Trump is fighting back.

The wife of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has been a soft target for media outlets during her husband’s campaign, has started legal action against Britain’s Daily Mail and other outlets that she says published defamatory articles about her past, Politico reports.

Prior to her marriage, Melania Trump was a highly successful model. In recent weeks news media have probed her past and questioned her career before she met Trump, including when she started work in America and whether she was legally working in the country. She denied any allegations of impropriety.

Last week the Daily Mail and a few other outlets published a story suggesting that Melania Trump worked as an escort.

The GOP nominee’s wife has signified she intends to fight back against such claims in the same hard-hitting style as her husband, engaging Charles Harder as her attorney. Harder was Hulk Hogan’s lawyer in the former wrestler’s successful lawsuit against Gawker.

Harder on Monday issued a statement on behalf of Melania Trump.

“Mrs. Trump has placed several news organizations on notice of her legal claims against them, including Daily Mail among others, for making false and defamatory statements about her supposedly having been an ‘escort’ in the 1990s,” Harder said in an email.

“All such statements are 100% false, highly damaging to her reputation, and personally hurtful. She understands that news media have certain leeway in a presidential campaign, but outright lying about her in this way exceeds all bounds of appropriate news reporting and human decency,’ the statement said.

Prior to the Daily Mail article’s publication, British news organizations had been warned not to publish the allegations.

Melania Trump noted that some who published the escort story have retracted it.

The website Inquisitr, which had run the story, on Monday ran a retraction and an apology.

“A story published within the last week at the Inquisitr had attributed to unfounded rumors and innuendo regarding model Melania Trump, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump, and her life prior to her marriage,” the retraction said.

“While Inquisitr writers did not generate said rumors, which alleged Melania Trump previously earned money as an escort, the writer in question was not diligent in fact-checking or maintaining a healthy distance between innuendo and fact,” the retraction added, offering her an apology.

Bipartisan Report also issued a retraction and apology. (For more from the author of “Melania Trump Puts Media on Notice About False Reports” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Muslim Dem Blames Trump ‘Racists’ for Her ‘Bigamy’ Problem

America’s soon-to-be first female Muslim legislator has a problem on her hands.

She’s accused of being married to two men, at the same time, including one who may be her brother. The second marriage was allegedly a sham, meant to deceive the U.S. government’s immigration system, allowing him to emigrate from the United Kingdom, according to local Minneapolis media.

But Ilhan Omar, a 33-year-old Somali refugee who was the victor in Minnesota’s Aug. 9 Democratic primary, denies the story, issuing a statement calling it “categorically false” and based on “absurd rumors that don’t bear repeating.” She charged those raising the issue are “racists” using “Donald Trump tactics” to drive a wedge between various demographic segments of Minnesota voters.

Omar defeated 44-year incumbent liberal Democrat Phyllis Khan. Since the district is made up primarily of an area of Minneapolis populated by immigrants and college students, Omar is considered a shoe-in in the November general election again her GOP opponent.

But local attorney Scott Johnson, an author of the well-read PowerLine blog, dropped a bombshell a few days after the primary with a story so shocking that the local media was forced to emerge from its euphoric coverage of Minnesota’s “first female Muslim refugee legislator” and acknowledge that this candidate has legitimate questions to answer. (Read more from “Muslim Dem Blames Trump ‘Racists’ for Her ‘Bigamy’ Problem” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

HUMA ABEDIN’S MOTHER: An Advocate for Islamist Terror and Repression

Hillary Clinton’s closest and most powerful aide is Huma Abedin.

Abedin’s parents have been tied to wide range of terrorist activity and Islamist repression.

In 2012, the Center for Security Policy published a comprehensive review of Abedin’s mother’s work (PDF). Given Ms. Abedin’s proximity to a possible future President, these connections and beliefs are well worth exploring.

…Saleha Abedin, was described in Foreign Policy misleadingly as a “leading voice on women’s rights in the Muslim world” for her work on Islamic women’s issues. The content of that work, however, turns the western concept of women’s rights on its head; Abedin’s mission is the promotion of doctrinal shariah in family life and justification of the brutal and objectively anti-women practices commonplace everywhere that shariah is enforced…

…An organization Abedin founded and chaired, the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), advocates for the repeal of Egypt’s Mubarak-era prohibitions on female genital mutilation, child marriage, and marital rape, on the grounds that such prohibitions run counter to Islamic law, which allows for their practice. As shariah justification for this position, the IICWC quotes infamous Hitler-praising Muslim Brotherhood chief jurist Yusuf al Qaradawi, long banned from entering the United States for advocating the murder of Americans in the Middle East.

In the 90s, Dr. Abedin and her late husband (and Huma Abedin’s father) published the Arabic edition of Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations by Saudi Islamist academic Fatima Umar Naseef…

160821-abedin6

…The book includes 22 citations to works by Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966). Qutb has inspired both Islamist terrorist organizations (like al Qaeda and Egyptian Islamic Jihad) and supplied the ideological basis for the Muslim Brotherhood’s ultimate political goals as well as their tactics.

Qutb advocated for the centrality of jihad, warfare of conquest against non-Muslims, the importance of the shariah state…

Emails recently released by Judicial Watch reveal Huma Abedin warning staffers that Hillary Clinton is “often confused”.

Should Hillary Clinton win the White House, Abedin will be in a position of significant power; she will be a “shadow president” not unlike Valerie Jarrett. (For more from the author of “HUMA ABEDIN’S MOTHER: An Advocate for Islamist Terror and Repression” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.