What Liberals Don’t Get: Blacks Often Hurt by Government Regulation

/0 Comments/in , /by

A general economic principle is that any law or regulation that restricts market entry tends to impose the greatest burden on those who can be described as poor, latecomers, discriminated against, and politically weak.

The president of the NAACP’s St. Louis chapter, Adolphus Pruitt, has petitioned a circuit court judge to reject the St. Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission’s conspiratorial call to issue a temporary restraining order that would force Uber to shut down. He says the order would negatively impact nearly 2,000 African-Americans who work as Uber partners in black neighborhoods that have long been ignored by taxis and other transportation providers.

In a statement, Pruitt said, “The immediate harm of a (temporary restraining order) would strand thousands of African-American riders who depend on Uber to travel around a city that has measurable gaps in its transportation system and has failed to serve our neighborhoods for decades.”

St. Louis taxicab restrictions are not nearly so onerous as those in some other cities. In New York, the license, called a medallion, to own one taxi costs $704,000. In Chicago, the medallion price in 2015 was $270,000, down from $357,000 in 2013. Boston medallions currently sell for about $200,000, and that’s down from $700,000 several years ago.

The effect of these licensing restrictions is to close the market to those who do not have hundreds of thousands of dollars or are unable to acquire a loan to purchase a medallion. I’d ask my liberal friends: Who are the people least likely to have those resources?

Entry restrictions are not necessarily a racial issue. Those who are in a monopoly arrangement find it in their interest to keep outsiders out. If they can do so, it means they can charge higher prices and earn higher income. That means blacks who are part of a taxicab monopoly share the same interests as whites in that industry.

There are hundreds of conspiratorial entry restrictions that work against blacks. George Leef has a story in Forbes about a case before the courts, Pritchard v. Board of Cosmetology. The plaintiff is Tammy Pritchard, a policewoman who would like to supplement her income by working in a hair salon owned by a friend. The salon specializes in African hair braiding, and Pritchard wants to shampoo customers’ hair.

After she had been working a few months, Tennessee Board of Cosmetology officials barred her from washing hair because she lacks a governmental license to do so. Under the board’s regulations, an individual must complete “not less than 300 hours” of instruction “in the practice and theory of shampooing” at an approved school. Pritchard cannot afford the time and money costs, so she has lost a source of income.

My colleagues at the Institute for Justice have waged war against economic restrictions since 1991 and have had a number of important successes. Among hair braiders the Institute for Justice has liberated from onerous regulations are those in Arkansas, California, Iowa, Washington, and Missouri. The institute has successfully waged war against taxi licensing and other transportation restrictions in Bowling Green, Milwaukee, Chicago, Florida, Cincinnati, Denver, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Minneapolis, and elsewhere. Its successes in other areas of liberty can be found on its website.

The most devastating and difficult to change economic conspiracy is the minimum wage law. The conspiratorial aspect of the law is that it prices all people out of the job market whose skills do not provide the value of the minimum wage.

Put yourself in the place of an employer and ask yourself whether you would hire a person whom the minimum wage law mandates you pay $7.25 an hour if that person were so unfortunate that he could add only $5 worth of value an hour. Most employers would view hiring such a low-skilled person as a losing economic proposition, but they might hire him if he could be paid $5 an hour.

Unfortunately, the minimum wage law is seen as sacrosanct, and that conspiracy will continue in perpetuity—robbing youngsters, particularly black youngsters, of a chance to get their feet on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. (For more from the author of “What Liberals Don’t Get: Blacks Often Hurt by Government Regulation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Disgusting Socks Kaepernick Wore to Practice Completely Cross a Line

/0 Comments/in , /by

The San Francisco 49ers quarterback has created waves this week by refusing to stand for the national anthem at a preseason game, because he “won’t show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

But, as Independent Journal Review noted, Colin Kaepernick doesn’t just disdain the U.S. He also apparently disdains police officers.

Today, Sports Rant Radio tweeted a photo of Kaepernick sporting socks with pigs wearing police hats.

But there’s more. Kaepernick shared his take on the socks on his Instagram account:

“I wore these socks, in the past, because the rogue cops that are allowed to hold positions in police departments, not only put the community in danger, but also put the cops that have the right intentions in danger by creating an environment of tension and mistrust. I have two uncles and friends who are police officers and work to protect and serve ALL people. So before these socks, which were worn before I took my public stance, are used to distract from the real issues, I wanted to address this immediately.”

Really, Kaepernick? Next time you talk about “anti-oppression,” maybe wear a shirt that doesn’t pay homage to one the longest reigning dictators.

The NFL has stated Kaepernick will start in the 49ers’ last pre-season game on Thursday night against the San Diego Chargers. (For more from the author of “The Disgusting Socks Kaepernick Wore to Practice Completely Cross a Line” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

MARK LEVIN: Dammit, Obama Lied and Iran Is on Its Way to Nukes!

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Thursday on the Mark Levin program, Conservative Review’s Editor-in-Chief read a report indicating the Obama administration cut a secret deal with Iran to permit the terrorist-sponsoring regime to violate restrictions put in place by last year’s nuclear deal.

“This is the biggest issue of the day, the biggest issue of the month, the biggest issue of the year!”

Listen:

“These are impeachable offenses. For Obama. For Vice-President Biden. For Secretary of State Kerry. For Susan Rice. For the whole top-level of the administration, the president on down,” Levin said.

“We have just armed up the most aggressive, detestable terrorist-state on the face of the earth! We’ve just sold out to them! They’re on their way [to] building nuclear weapons!”

“This is the fate that Barack Obama has sealed for the American people!”

Mark Levin continued after the break, tearing into the Iran nuclear deal and the feckless politicians who gave it to us.

“They may seek to wash their hands, but their hands are full of uranium! Their hands are full of plutonium!” (For more from the author of “MARK LEVIN: Dammit, Obama Lied and Iran Is on Its Way to Nukes!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Just When You Think the Clinton Insanity Is Over, There’s More!

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It’s been a rough start to the week for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. On Tuesday, State Department attorneys announced that they had retrieved 30 emails relating to the 2012 Benghazi attacks from Clinton’s private server.

According to the Washington Examiner, a judge requested that the agency review the documents ahead of a release to the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, which filed the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that resulted in a year-long FBI probe involving around 15,000 emails — over 2,000 of which were believed to contain classified information.

As the Examiner points out, the new discovery is noteworthy because Clinton had repeatedly insisted to government agencies and to the public that she turned over all work-related communications in the batch of 55,000 pages she submitted to the FBI in late 2014.

During the hearing Tuesday, State Department lawyers told Judge Amit Mehta of U.S. District Court that they had yet to determine how many of the 30 emails had already been disclosed in the 2014 email dump, according to the Examiner.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton announced in a tweet Tuesday that the State Department requested 30 days to review the new emails before releasing them to the watchdog group.

But wait — there’s more! On Wednesday, the New York Post announced that it has exclusively learned that Clinton continued to send classified information over her private server months after leaving the State Department:

On May 28, 2013, months after stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton sent an email to a group of diplomats and top aides about the “123 Deal” with the United Arab Emirates.

But the email, which was obtained by the Republican National Committee through a Freedom of Information Act request, was heavily redacted upon its release by the State Department because it contains classified information.

The email, sent from [email protected] (the account associated with Clinton’s private server), is marked classified until May 28, 2033. The RNC eventually received a heavily redacted copy through its Freedom of Information Act request, as it includes “information regarding foreign governors” and “foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.”

Clinton sent the email to Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, diplomat Jeffrey Feltman, policy aide Jake Sullivan, diplomat Kurt Campbell, State Department chief of staff Cheryl Mills, and top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

The “123 Deal,” also called the “123 Agreement,” was a 2009 agreement between the United States and United Arab Emirates that established “a required legal framework for commerce in civilian nuclear energy between the two countries,” according to the UAE Embassy website.

“Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information was so pervasive, it continued after she left government,” RNC research director Raj Shah told the Post. “She clearly can’t be trusted with our nation’s security.”

Darn that Freedom of Information Act! (For more from the author of “Just When You Think the Clinton Insanity Is Over, There’s More!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Left Is Busily Planting Fake Red-Meat Conservative News Sites

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Almost all of us have been a victim of accidentally spreading fake news at one time. A trusted friend emails you a link to an article that is red meat for the conservative base; it sounds legitimate, and the name of the site even sounds official. You forward the article and post it on Facebook and Twitter — and then the backlash is embarrassing. Multiple people point out you’re wrong, and you feel like an idiot. But how were you to know, especially in this information overload, social media era? It has become normal to quickly skim articles and headlines. And why would you suspect your most trusted, intelligent friends would be sending you false news?

It used to be The Onion was the only satire news site. And the site makes it very clear its news is satire. But within the last year, multiple sites (there is a list compiled here) have sprung up that do not make it clear they are satire, if at all. They brazenly post fake news that isn’t even funny, like The Onion, but sounds like legitimate news.

By posting these outlandish tales, the sites attract many page views, which allows them to make money from advertisers. Even more nefarious, some are run by Democrats in order to make conservatives look like radical extremists. The strategy, an insider told me, is to fool so many conservatives into spreading a ridiculous, fake article that finally a prominent elected official falls for it. Then the left pounces on the official and makes them look foolish and/or an extremist.

As I’ve written previously, putting out heroic stories about Donald Trump that turn out to be false doesn’t help Trump when people discover they are false.

Some of the worst offenders are sites that rip off names from legitimate conservative news sites. World News Daily Report is a typical example. It sounds very similar to the conservative site WorldNetDaily, which recently renamed itself to WND. The disclaimer on the site says nothing about the news being fake; instead, it disingenuously states that the site is not responsible for inaccurate information. The fake site’s “About us FAQ” page pretends to cater to conservative Jews and Christians with a strong defense of Israel. Yet how are fake news articles helping Israel? The site has become so successful that the myth-debunking site Snopes now lists it second on its “Field Guide to Fake News Sites and Hoax Purveyors.”

For some of these sites, the proverbial chickens have come home to roost. The gossip website Gawker was recently sued by celebrity wrestler Hulk Hogan for posting a sex tape of him, which put the company into bankruptcy and forced it to shut down a week ago. There are many ways these sites could be sued out of existence, such as for libel or the unauthorized use of images. Facebook has started removing these articles from users’ news feeds. Perhaps a developer can create an app to add to browsers that will specifically block these sites.

The people who run these sites are nothing more than cruel bullies who should get a taste of their own medicine. It is one thing to identify a story as parody, but to deliberately print false news to trick innocent people in order to make them look bad and destroy their credibility is dishonest, a nuisance and an abuse of the press. If they knowingly put false news about a crime or catastrophe out over TV, they would be prosecuted, due to the dangers of creating substantial public harm such as a mass panic.

Until these sites are curtailed, conservatives must get into the habit of looking up news articles regularly on myth-debunking sites like Snopes (granted, that particular site leans to the left). If The New York Times isn’t breaking some huge story, but a site called Your News Wire is, that is a good indication it may be a fake article. (For more from the author of “The Left Is Busily Planting Fake Red-Meat Conservative News Sites” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clinton Camp Thinks Trump Fell for Old Trick

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton’s campaign feels confident. So confident that behind closed doors her team is taking some credit for forcing Donald Trump to seemingly defend territory that Republicans almost never lose.

After weeks of Brooklyn telegraphing a competitive race in traditionally red states and making public moves that look like initial investments — boosting staff, holding fundraisers and promising more investments — Trump is now campaigning in Arizona, which has voted Republican in 15 of the past 16 elections, while his running mate goes to Georgia, a state that’s gone red in seven of the past eight cycles.

That’s a deployment of precious resources away from swing states that Trump must win to make the Electoral College math work in his favor.

In private, members of Clinton’s team draw a direct line between their activity in those states and Trump’s worries there. In public, Democrats are starting to cheer the success.

“This would be the equivalent of Hillary having to campaign in Massachusetts or having to campaign in California, except [to raise] money,” said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, a veteran of Bill Clinton’s campaign and White House teams who remains close to the family’s operation. “Either he has fallen for it hook, line and sinker, or there are substantive concerns given his changes in some of the margins within specific cohorts of voters. Either way, it’s good news.” (Read more from “Clinton Camp Thinks Trump Fell for Old Trick” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Republican Congressman Ed Whitfield Announces Resignation on Short Notice

/0 Comments/in , /by

As the fractured Republican Party works desperately to maintain its majority in both houses of Congress, and build momentum for the November elections, it will be losing one member of the House of Representatives next week.

Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., 73, announced Wednesday that he will be resigning on the day Congress returns after a seven week recess.

Whitfield had previously announced he would retire at the end of his term.

Whitfield officially announced his intention to step down in a letter to Republican Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin. The letter did not state a reason for Whitfield’s decision.

“It has been my honor and privilege to have represented the constituents of the First District of Kentucky in the United States Congress for the last almost 22 years,” Whitfield wrote.

“As you know, I did not seek re-election to Congress this year and have now decided to submit my resignation as the Congressman of the First District of Kentucky, effective 6 p.m., Tuesday, September 6, 2016,” the letter added.

Bevin released a statement in response to Whitfield’s resignation.

“Both personally and on behalf of the Commonwealth, I want to thank Congressman Ed Whitfield for his many years of service to our state and our nation,” Bevin said.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., praised Whitfield.

“It has been an honor working alongside him on a variety of issues, including our support for the workers at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant and for the men and women serving our country stationed at Fort Campbell,” McConnell said.

The House Ethics Committee had been investigating the 11-term congressman to determine whether his wife, who is a lobbyist for the Human Society, had improper access to Whitfield.

Last month, the panel rebuked Whitfield, saying he did take sufficient measures to prevent inappropriate linkages between his staff and wife. However, the committee also ruled that Whitefield did not intentionally break ethics rules.

The election to fill the final weeks of Whitfield’s term will come on the same day as the general election contest to replace him, which pits Republican James Comer against Democrat Sam Gaskins.

House Republicans currently have a majority of 247-186 over Democrats. (For more from the author of “Republican Congressman Ed Whitfield Announces Resignation on Short Notice” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Calls Hillary a Bigot. Rubio: Some of Her Policies ‘Do Harm Minority Communities’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hours before he won a contested Florida primary, the state’s junior Senator declined to criticize Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for calling Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton a “bigot.” According to Republican Senator Marco Rubio, Trump is merely turning a long-time Democratic tactic against them, and not without some justification.

“Democrats have been calling republicans a bigot for a long time,” Rubio told CNN reporter Manu Raju. “Some of the policies she stands for do harm minority communities, absolutely.”

“Too far to call her a bigot, though?” asked Raju.

“You have to ask other campaigns about the terms they use,” said Rubio. “I can tell you I don’t want Hillary Clinton to be our president.”

Trump has pivoted his campaign in recent weeks to woo black voters, saying that Clinton is a “bigot” because she doesn’t care about the quality of minority lives in America. “She is a bigot,” he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper. “She is selling them down the tubes because she’s not doing anything for those communities. She talks a good game. But she doesn’t do anything.”

When Cooper asked if Clinton had disdain for blacks, Trump said, “Her policies are bigoted because she knows they’re not going to work.”

Clinton responded in a Thursday speech, twice accusing Trump of “bigotry” and twice accusing him of making a “racial lie.” Many media voices seemed to defend Clinton or downplay the aggression in her speech, even as they reacted strongly to Trump’s accusations.

The Nazi Card

Trump’s attack is one often heard, but usually it’s Democrats calling Republicans bigots. A quick search pulled up some prominent liberal figures accusing various Republicans of bigoted beliefs of various kinds, including the charge that they hold the same positions as Nazis.

In 2001, the first president of the Southern Poverty Law Center and then-NAACP Chairman Julian Bond — now deceased — compared U.S. conservatives to the Taliban. In 2003, he said of Republicans, “Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side.”

Current U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was accused in his Senate hearings of discriminatory beliefs towards non-whites and women, something that led his wife to leave the hearing in tears and Alito to declare, “I am not any kind of a bigot.”

A 2004 Townhall.com column highlighted many examples of prominent Democrats — among them then-Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, himself a former KKK member, as well former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and a federal judge — comparing President George W. Bush or members of his administration to Hitler or to those working for Hitler. This column highlights other examples.

Sometimes the accusations are subtle. Other times, not so much. After a rules debate in the U.S. Senate, one Democratic Senator dialed the rhetoric straight to ten:

“You’re a bunch of dictators, that’s all you are,” Rep. Sam Gibbons (D-Fla.) shouted as he stormed, red-faced, from a meeting room just off the House floor. “I had to fight you guys 50 years ago,” said Gibbons, who fought the Nazis in World War II.

In 2012, the Chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party compared GOP Governor Nikki Haley — who is of Indian descent — to Adolf Hitler’s girlfriend Eva Braun, this when Haley spoke at a GOP event in Charlotte, North Carolina at the same time as the Democratic National Convention.

There is enough of this sort of thing to compile “A Short History of Liberals Using the Nazi Card” against conservatives.

Fascists and Racists

When they want to be slightly less hamfisted, the American left opts for terms like “fascist” or “racist.” So, for instance, in 2015 a University of Wisconsin sociologist who is now employed by Temple University called her state’s governor, Scott Walker, “and many Wisconsin Legislators” fascists in a tweet. She wasn’t the only one. A Google search for the joint terms “Scott Walker” and “fascist” brings up many options.

Last year, prominent liberal columnist Frank Rich said that Dr. Ben Carson, who is black, appealed to the “racist, bigoted” GOP base when Carson said he might not support a Muslim president. In 2013, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) compared Tea Party activists to the KKK, which led to criticisms from liberals like MSNBC host Martin Bashir, but also praise from liberal commentators — including one who said Mitt Romney was engaging in racism when he told the NAACP in 2012 that some voters want “free stuff.”

Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, was also accused of bigotry in a Bloomberg column for allegedly forcing a gay staffer criticized by social conservatives to quit his campaign. His predecessor GOP nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, was accused of various forms of racism and bigotry in multiple mediums when he ran for President.

President Barack Obama was not above similar rhetoric, accusing Romney in 2012 of wanting to bring America back to its sexist and racist past. Other prominent liberal voices did the same on TV, online and in print, to the point where many Americans may have simply tuned them out.

Media is “Setting Aside Any Concept of Ethics or Neutrality”

Conservative critics of the media’s treatment of Republicans abound. One of them, Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center, told The Stream that “the left and the media use four major strategies to attack either conservative or right-leaning politicians. They claim they are some combination of crazy, evil, stupid and racist. They depicted Reagan as crazy, senile (stupid) and racist. George H.W. Bush had run the CIA, so he was evil. George W. Bush was described as crazy and stupid.”

“The ist words are the most popular ones with the media now — racist, sexist, nationalist, etc.,” continued Gainor. “These are designed to eliminate any debate. One you have been declared ist, you are merely supposed to recant and be silent.”

Gainor concluded, “Liberals and those in the media are shocked that Trump dare criticize Clinton at all. They overwhelmingly have thrown in for her candidacy, setting aside any concept of ethics or neutrality.” (For more from the author of “Trump Calls Hillary a Bigot. Rubio: Some of Her Policies ‘Do Harm Minority Communities'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

John Kerry Is Wrong Again: Not Talking About Terrorism Won’t Make It Go Away

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the latest episode of “ridiculous things U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says about terrorism,” the former senator and presidential candidate thinks that the media needs to stop reporting so much on terrorism — because that will help stop it.

“Remember this: No country is immune from terrorism,” Kerry said in Bangladesh on Tuesday. “It’s easy to terrorize. Government and law enforcement have to be correct 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.”

“But if you decide one day you’re going to be a terrorist and you’re willing to kill yourself,” he continued, “you can go out and kill some people. You can make some noise. Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on.”

There are two major problems with this.

Firstly, not talking about something doesn’t make it less terrible. Jihadist terror has become such a widespread global problem that if one wants to spend the time aggregating and reporting news of terror attacks all over the world it is more than a full-time job. And no matter how much reporters, bloggers, and columnists try, they cannot adequately report on the sheer scale of the problem. Even if they were able to, the average reader would quickly go from enflamed to inured — as many already have regarding ISIS atrocities — at the constant influx of horror and destruction.

Yes, if the media reported less on the effects of the global jihadist threat, people might not be as concerned or enraged by their government’s utterly feckless approach to dealing with it, but to do so would be a gross disservice to the truth.

Secondly, Obama’s State Department clearly has a problem understanding what actually motivates terrorism, as evidenced by previous statements by Kerry and others on the subject. Jihadists aren’t motivated by headlines; they are, and have always been, motivated by jihad.

While Kerry’s proposed approach is nonsensical, it’s just the latest in a long line of statements by Obama administration officials desperate to associate terror attacks with anything but radical Islam. Just a few weeks ago, Kerry claimed that chemicals used in refrigerators and air conditioners were just as big a threat as ISIS.

“As we were working together on the challenge of [the Islamic State], and terrorism,” Kerry said last month at an international meeting in Vienna to amend the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which deals with said substances. “It’s hard for some people to grasp it, but what we — you — are doing here right now is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself.”

The president has also taken this line. As CR’s Tom Borelli points out, President Obama has repeatedly equated jihadist terror with climate change or other factors that have nothing to do with jihad.

And who can forgive the dynamite “jobs for jihadis” interview that State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf gave last year on MSNBC when she claimed that the best way to combat the centuries-long issue of jihadism in the Middle East is to “help countries work at the root causes of [terrorism]” and ask “what makes these 17-year-old kids pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business?”

Well, Ms. Harf, seeing as poverty is a problem in almost every society — including the ones that AREN’T breeding grounds for terror organizations — it might just be a pervasive ideology that has been in the region for centuries.

The kind of “terrorism” that is most often experienced (with very few notable exceptions) throughout the world is motivated by jihadist ideologies carried out by international organizations, or militants affiliated/inspired therewith, holding a clearly-defined worldview with a centuries-long history.

As laid out in greater detail by Sebastian Gorka in his book, “Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War,” modern global jihadism (what some Republican politicians like to insufficiently label as “radical Islamic terrorism”) is the product of over 1,000 years of theological and strategic thought.

“Just as one must study Clausewitz, Machiavelli, and Napoleon to understand the modern Western way of war,” explains Dr. Gorka, “so one must be intimately acquainted with certain key jihadi writers and thinkers if one wishes to defeat our current enemy.”

The terrorists to which John Kerry is referring — the guys who just want to “make some noise” — see themselves in the same line as the mujahideen who took on the Soviets and the foot soldiers of the original Ottoman caliphate. While groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda may vary greatly in their strategic approaches, the overarching goal remains the same: the establishment of a global caliphate run by a medieval interpretation of sharia law.

These guys are not teenage delinquents calling in bomb threats to high schools, they are militants appealing to an ancient, barbaric tradition of oppression and terror. Nor are they just guys looking to get a hand up; they see themselves being on a divine mission to subvert our way of life. The sooner the Obama administration realizes this, the better. (For more from the author of “John Kerry Is Wrong Again: Not Talking About Terrorism Won’t Make It Go Away” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LEVIN TO COLIN KAEPERNICK: Stay Seated, Jerk. You’re an Insignificant Fly.

/0 Comments/in , /by

This guy Colin Kaepernick wouldn’t do this in Iran; he wouldn’t do it in Syria; he wouldn’t do it in 90 percent of the countries on the face of the earth; he wouldn’t do it in Cuba.

In other words, he wouldn’t do it in any place where it matters, where you’re really putting your neck on the line, where there truly is injustice and inequality – not because the country isn’t perfect, because the country is horrific.

All over the world we have these horrific countries. This man has benefited from the liberty, not that he’s created, but other men have created: men and women in the military, men and women in law enforcement, men and women in all walks of life. He’s benefited from these things. He hasn’t contributed a damn thing.

Colin Kaepernick: “… without being oppressed. To me this is … .”

Stop. I’ve had enough of that.

Who’s being oppressed in this country? I want to know who’s being oppressed.

You know, if you’re being oppressed that means you are denied your unalienable rights.

Who is being denied their unalienable rights?

You would think if there is oppression in this country we would have a wall and a fence and a moat and everything else to keep people in. We don’t try to keep people in.

Nobody’s forced to stay here. Nobody’s forced to come here.

People are being oppressed?

Then why the hell do people come into this country from Africa, from Asia, from the Middle East, from Latin America? Why the hell do people come here from anywhere? Even more, why do people stay here with all this oppression that’s taking place?

Because a dimwit with a 12 IQ, like this guy, can make $126 million in six years based on one or two seasons, and he still sucks.

When he doesn’t stand during the national anthem it’s not because of social injustice or anything else. He’s spitting on the men and women who are in one hell-hole all over this country fighting for that flag, fighting for this nation, and every one of them that came before them – every one of them.

That’s why this is important – not because of him. He’s unimportant. Not because of one principal who says you can’t bring in the American flag. You might offend an ethnic group. Because this is going on everywhere.

Go ahead.

Colin Kaepernick: “It has to change, and when there’s significant change and I feel like that flag represents what it’s supposed to represent and this country is representin’ people the way that it’s supposed to, I’ll stand. There’s people being murdered unjustly and not being … .”

Alright, stop.

I don’t want you to stand. I don’t want you to stand. You stay seated. You’re not allowed to stand. You stay seated, you jerk. You stay seated. That’s how you’ll honor this country – by getting out of the way and staying out of the way.

You’re an insignificant fly. That’s right, I said it! (For more from the author of “LEVIN TO COLIN KAEPERNICK: Stay Seated, Jerk. You’re an Insignificant Fly.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.