Why Americans Crave the Return of ‘Rocky’ and ‘Star Wars’ Now

Perhaps it is coincidence, or maybe even providence, that the seventh film in both the Rocky and Star Wars franchises are in theaters now, nearly 40 years after they first made cinematic history.

In the case of the original Rocky, art actually imitated life. Just as Rocky Balboa, a no-name club fighter from Philly, beat the odds and went the distance with the champion of the world, Apollo Creed, the little, low-budget film that could did very well at the box office (nearly $500 million in today’s dollars) and won the Oscar for best picture in 1976.

I happened to be in Philadelphia shortly after the Star Wars release in 1977. Somehow, as a 10-year-old kid, I had not heard of what would become the most successful box office franchise of all time. Lining the sidewalk for what seemed like at least a city block, were people waiting to get in to the theater. I remember seeing “Star Wars” on the marquis and asking my uncle, what it was about. He was amazed at the question.

Needless to say, shortly thereafter our family went. And from the moment the John Williams-written theme boomed into the theater and the giant words appeared on the screen, I was in rapt attention for what turned out to be a great ride. The film took in over $300 million at the box office, which would be $1.2 billion in today’s dollars, when the population of the United States was 100 million fewer. It was a phenomenon.

Why were these two films about the down and out guy triumphing and good winning against all odds so right for their times and why are they still resonating now, decades later? Well certainly nostalgia plays a role, but art is not created in a vacuum.

Those themes, of course, have played into the story of America since its inception, from the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock colonizing the barren New World to the Founders at Independence Hall declaring a new nation.

Needless to say, shortly thereafter our family went. And from the moment the John Williams-written theme boomed into the theater and the giant words appeared on the screen, I was in rapt attention for what turned out to be a great ride. The film took in over $300 million at the box office, which would be $1.2 billion in today’s dollars, when the population of the United States was 100 million fewer. It was a phenomenon.

Why were these two films about the down and out guy triumphing and good winning against all odds so right for their times and why are they still resonating now, decades later? Well certainly nostalgia plays a role, but art is not created in a vacuum.

Those themes, of course, have played into the story of America since its inception, from the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock colonizing the barren New World to the Founders at Independence Hall declaring a new nation.

Perhaps it is not surprising that Americans turned to a Hollywood actor for their next president to shake off the fear and uncertainty of the 1970s. After all, Tinseltown still believed in and was selling hopeful stories like Rocky and Star Wars.

As the decade was drawing to a close, former California Gov. Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy in a television address, not sitting behind a desk, as Carter had a few months earlier, but standing confidently in front of one. He was telling new story, which was really the old story of America.

“Someone once said that the difference between an American and any other kind of person is that an American lives in anticipation of the future because he knows it will be a great place,” Reagan observed. “Other people fear the future as just a repetition of past failures.”

The Gipper (Reagan’s nickname from a popular movie role) was not willing to accept the latter for the land he loved. The boy from the Midwest had made good, living out the American dream first in Hollywood in 1940s and ’50s and going on to become governor of the most populous state in the union in the 1960s and early ’70s.

“I don’t believe that” the United States has reached its zenith and must inevitably decline, Reagan said. “And, I don’t believe you do either. That is why I am seeking the presidency. I cannot and will not stand by and see this great country destroy itself.”

The American people believed in the Californian’s hopeful vision for the country and elected him to office in a landslide: 44 states to Carter’s 6.

As the former actor, took the stage at his inauguration, he pronounced, “We have every right to dream heroic dreams…after all, why shouldn’t we believe that? We are Americans.”

During Reagan’s time in office both the Rocky and Star Wars’ franchises continued to flourish, with films released from each in 1982 and 1985. However, now the victorious, hopeful dreams they were selling were becoming a reality, as Americans went back to work, and the economy soared to unprecedented heights.

“I don’t believe that” the United States has reached its zenith and must inevitably decline, Reagan said. “And, I don’t believe you do either. That is why I am seeking the presidency. I cannot and will not stand by and see this great country destroy itself.”
The American people believed in the Californian’s hopeful vision for the country and elected him to office in a landslide: 44 states to Carter’s 6.

As the former actor, took the stage at his inauguration, he pronounced, “We have every right to dream heroic dreams…after all, why shouldn’t we believe that? We are Americans.”

During Reagan’s time in office both the Rocky and Star Wars’ franchises continued to flourish, with films released from each in 1982 and 1985. However, now the victorious, hopeful dreams they were selling were becoming a reality, as Americans went back to work, and the economy soared to unprecedented heights. (For more from the author of “Why Americans Crave the Return of ‘Rocky’ and ‘Star Wars’ Now” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

If Your Church Makes Christianity ‘Cool’ and Comfortable, You Should Find a New Church

There are no two words in the English language more incongruous than “celebrity” and “pastor,” but as we all know, these are very incongruous times. One of the latest red carpet-trotting “celebrity pastors,” Rich Wilkerson, was just profiled here on TheBlaze.

Pastor Rich is a young guy who dresses in skinny pants and deep v-neck tees, poses for photo ops, takes Instagram selfies with Justin Bieber, and shies away from “controversial” subjects like gay marriage and abortion, because, as he explains, he wants people to like him. Pastor Rich brags of being “great friends” with Kanye West, and even officiated his wedding a few years ago.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with befriending a sinner — we’re all sinners, to be sure — but maybe a pastor ought to exercise some prudence. It might be wise to avoid creating scandal among your flock by publicly hobnobbing with a blasphemous egomaniac who claims to be God and made his fortune rapping about getting high and having sex with hookers. But Pastor Rich is super cool, and super cool people are supposed to hang out with famous rappers. Remember, a good Christian must always be awesome, fun, and trendy, no matter what. As Jesus proclaimed, “The only rule in life is have fun, don’t be boring, and dress cute wherever you go.”

Sorry I think that was actually Paris Hilton. It can be easy to get those two confused, depending on which church you attend.

The preview for his new reality show (of course) intersperses clips of Pastor Rich cavorting on the beach with his scantily clad wife with footage of him shouting self-help cliches – “Nothing will be impossible!.. We’re gonna do life together!” – to a mosh pit of cheering fans at a rock festival. Er, I mean, a congregation of Christian disciples at “church.” At one point, Rich reveals to the viewing audience his insightful pastoral motto: “I don’t think people are interested in a bunch of religion — like, yo, tell me what I can and can’t do — but I think people are interested in a relationship with a higher power. “ (Read more from “If Your Church Makes Christianity ‘Cool’ and Comfortable, You Should Find a New Church” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Global Delusion of Global Warming

The Global Climate Change insanity that is gripping the world is not the first time that an intellectually dishonest and misleading argument has seized the attention of and been championed by opinion makers and the most wealthy of business and financial leaders. Nor is it the first time that bad science has become the foundation for flawed policy and been embraced by political leaders. The blind religious devotion surrounding “Climate Change” reminds me of the time starting a little more than 100 years ago, when prominent scientists and physicians, with the backing of the leading industrialists and philanthropists, advocated selective breeding, sterilization and euthanasia in order to create the “best” populations:

The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup. Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution. They tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples; supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws; and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and “immoral”. Eugenics was also supported by African Americans intellectuals such as W. E. B. Du Bois, Thomas Wyatt Turner, and many academics at Tuskegee University, Howard University, and Hampton University; however they believed the best blacks were as good as the best whites and “The Talented Tenth” of all races should mix. W. E. B. Du Bois believed “only fit blacks should procreate to eradicate the race’s heritage of moral iniquity.”

The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune. In 1906 J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan. The Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was founded in Cold Spring Harbor, New York in 1911 by the renowned biologist Charles B. Davenport, using money from both the Harriman railroad fortune and the Carnegie Institution. As late as the 1920s, the ERO was one of the leading organizations in the American eugenics movement. In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard, Harry H. Laughlin, and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the “unfit”. Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination. The Eugenics Record Office later became the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

(Read more from “The Global Delusion of Global Warming” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

4 Insane Reasons Why Liberals Admire and Romanticize Islam

1. It enforces the narrative. Obvious, but it must be mentioned. Liberals have identified Muslims as an aggrieved minority, and this status means they’ll have the Muslim vote, but it also means they can never criticize, or tolerate criticism of, this declared Victim Group . . .

2. It makes them feel good. Liberalism is an inherently selfish ideology. It is, as I’ve explained, the worship of the self. Therefore any liberal idea or belief will be adopted primarily to serve the person who holds it. White liberals feel good when they get the opportunity to be knights in shining armor defending brown and black people from the opinions and judgments of other white people. More importantly, it makes them feel morally superior to those other white people, which alleviates some of their white guilt and strokes their ego in the process . . .

3. It’s all relative. Liberals don’t believe in rights and liberties for all people, as is evidenced by their immense affection for infanticide. For them, everything is relative, especially human rights. To put it simply, gays have rights here and women have rights here because this is where we live and where they live, and this is what we decided. Other cultures might decide other things, and who are we to judge? . . .

4. They hate Christianity. Everything in the world ultimately revolves around Christianity. Christ’s death and resurrection were the single most important events in the history of the universe, and now all people and all nations are finally defined by their acceptance or rejection of that truth. Liberalism rejects the truth, and it’s rejection is central to its existence, just as our acceptance is central to ours. (Read more from “4 Insane Reasons Why Liberals Admire and Romanticize Islam” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

9 Harmful Policies GOP Must Block in Budget Bill

“This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” James Madison, Federalist #58

This week will serve as the harbinger for how dramatically Obama will be able to “fundamentally transform” America during his final year in office — coinciding with a time of unprecedented domestic and international security threats.

When the voters elect a divided government, the expectation is that each side will have to implement some policies that the other dislikes. With Republicans in control of Congress and the purse strings that come with that power, the December budget bill will be the last opportunity to redress the grievances from which the American people seek relief. This is a time for Republicans to fight for a number of policies that, if not rescinded, will cause irrevocable damage to either our security or our economy. Particularly in Obama’s final year it is vital that Republicans preemptively curb him from consummating the great fundamental transformation.
While there are endless liberal policies conservatives would love to block in the budget bill, there are certain items that must be defunded now and cannot wait for the next president.

Stop Obama’s Dangerous Refugee Program

Republicans are floating the idea of attaching their phony refugee bill to the omnibus. Their bill will not shut down the program; the best way to prevent future radical Islamists from entering our nation. It’s time Republicans harness the overwhelming public opposition to refugee resettlement and defund the entire program for the rest of the fiscal year until the Government Accountability Office conducts a full audit of the program’s security problems and fiscal cost. As Sen. Jeff Sessions noted, if Republicans fund refugee resettlement in the omnibus, December 11 will truly be a date that will live in infamy. The details of the San Bernardino terror attack demonstrate just how dangerous our immigration policies can be. The budget bill will provide Congress with the last chance to block the new immigration of radical sharia-adherent Muslims from Syria and potential terrorists like Tafsheen Malik.
Republicans should force Democrats into the awkward position defending terrorists.

Defund Amnesty

The release of tens of thousands of dangerous criminal aliens into our communities is undoubtedly the biggest threat to our security for the remainder of this presidency.

But the problem is not only limited to sanctuary cities. It’s localities, such as Frederick County, Maryland, that want to cooperate with ICE but are stymied from doing so. Why? Because Obama has essentially repealed the Secure Communities and 287(g) programs designed to coordinate and train local law enforcement in helping with immigration enforcement. Republicans must condition funding for DHS to the reinstatement of Secure Communities and 287(g). They must also defund DACA, which is still incentivizing a massive border surge to this very day. And obviously, they must defund sanctuary cities. We cannot afford another year of mass illegal immigration. Yet, at present, as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) noted, Republicans are planning to fund every aspect of Obama’s amnesty agenda in the Omnibus.

At a time when we have record immigration from the Muslim world, in conjunction with no deportations, no visa tracking, and an open border, we have never been more vulnerable to a terror attack. This cannot stand another year.

Defund Planned Parenthood

Republicans will never have as much momentum behind defunding Planned Parenthood as they do now. Given the shocking video exposés of their harvesting and selling of baby organs and the fact that the organization is under criminal investigation, there is no excuse for Republicans to grant them new taxpayer funds. Besides, there is never a bad time to defund taxpayer-funded murder.

Stop Arming Syrian Rebels and Iraq Army

We should not spend another dime and another year arming rebels in Syria that are either infiltrated or over-run by Al Qaeda. Ditto for the Iraqi army, which is either inept or a proxy for Iran. Let’s stop arming our enemies and save ourselves hundreds of millions while we are at it. What is so disconcerting is that Syed Farook, the San Bernardino terrorist, had contacts with Al Nusra, the very terror group that has received light and heavy arms from our very own CIA. This cannot be allowed to continue.

Stop Aid to the Palestinian Authority

It’s never a bad time to stop funding the Palestinians. But with the sick stabbing intifada under way in Israel, and now under way in some U.S. cities, isn’t it time we end the $500 million in U.S. aid to this decedent and corrupt organization? Republicans should also defund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Every year, the U.S. contributes roughly $275 million a year to this multinational group that has long harbored Palestinian terrorists under the guise of humanitarian aid. Republicans should force Democrats into the awkward position defending terrorists.

Block Obama’s Jailbreak

In addition to setting criminal aliens free, Obama has made it the top priority of his final year to let out as many violent criminals from the federal prison system as possible. Instead of fighting his jailbreak, Republicans at all levels, including Paul Ryan, are seeking to codify his agenda with legislative jailbreak. Republicans would be wise to reverse course and defund any additional prison release for the remainder of this presidency.

Block Gun Control

Given everything that is transpiring with the aforementioned issues — record Islamic immigration, rampant criminal aliens, and mass prison releases — there is no time of greater danger for the American people than now. Consequently, the Second Amendment is more important than ever. Yet, in all likelihood Obama will pull the trigger on gun restrictions via administrative fiat during his final year. Republicans must insert a provision prohibiting any new administrative regulation on firearms or ammo during the next fiscal year.

Block Environmental Regulations

Even if by some miracle Obama is thwarted from implementing his societal changes and threatening our security, he is inexorably committed to remaking our economy through last minute energy regulations. He already announced his intention to cut carbon emissions of power plants by 32%, essentially ensuring that not a single new power plant will be built on our soil. Give that energy is the lifeblood of our economy and Obama’s final year in office will likely be spent targeting that lifeblood, Republicans must preempt this plan by prohibiting the promulgation of any new regulations on power plants for the rest of his presidency.

Block Obama’s Social Engineering in the Military

Last week, Obama’s Defense Secretary announced a shocking plan to coerce all military service branches into opening every single combat position to women. Even if this wasn’t a time of war, such a move is absurd, dangerous, and further degrades the morale and combat readiness of our military.

The Marine Corp conducted a painstaking study on this issue and found conclusively that placing women in direct ground combat unity, much less Special Forces, would harm their effectiveness. A recent survey showed near unanimity of opinion among special operators in opposition to women joining their ranks. By allowing this new edict to slide, as most Republicans plan to do, they will be complicit in causing irrevocable damage on our military at a time of grave national security concerns. They must attack a provision to defense funding blocking the Pentagon from implementing their women in combat plan against the wishes of the commanders in the field.

Don’t hold your breath for Republicans to fight in a meaningful was on any of the aforementioned issues. But it’s important to reflect upon the common sense actions a legitimate opposition party in control of the congressional purse strings would take in defense of the nation’s sovereignty, security, and society. (For more from the author of “9 Harmful Policies GOP Must Block in Budget Bill” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Welcome to Barack Obama’s America

In the wake of an Oval Office speech which went over so terribly that it has Politico openly wondering whether the entire form of presidential address is dead, yesterday’s announcement from Donald Trump that he believes the U.S. must block all Muslims from entering the country, “until our countries’ representatives can figure out what’s going on”, finally resolves the question about President Obama’s greatest political legacy.

It is no accident that President Obama’s America has given rise to Donald Trump. It is an America that is more tribalist, where people feel more racially and religiously divided; more politically correct, where people feel less free to speak their minds; and it is an America where trust in the nation’s elites, whose skills are credentialed but unproven, are at historic lows.

These are the wages of progressivism at the end of the day. Big government inevitably leads to government incompetence. That incompetence leads to growing and now dominant distrust – both in government’s basic competence, and in the values of the people who still insist upon it. Our modern elites respond to that rational distrust by smearing it as vile hatred, which further divides and toxifies our politics. And Trump is a perfect personality to exploit these divides, offering the promise of an authoritarian who represents the people in place of an authoritarian who represented the elites.

Consider the news that 965,000 migrants have sought asylum in Germany over the past year. Are jihadists using these refugee flows? Walter Russell Mead:

“Today’s Western elites, in the U.S. as much as in Europe, have never been so self-confident. Products of meritocratic selection who hold key positions in the social machine, the bien-pensant custodians of post-historical ideology—editorial writers at the NY Times, staffers in cultural and educational bureaucracies, Eurocratic functionaries, much of the professoriat, the human rights priesthood and so on—are utterly convinced that they see farther and deeper than the less credentialed, less educated, less tolerant and less sophisticated knuckle-dragging also-rans outside the magic circle of post historical groupthink. And while the meritocratic priesthood isn’t wrong about everything—and the knuckle-draggers aren’t right about everything—there are a few big issues on which the priests are dead wrong and the knuckle-draggers know it.”

(Read more from “Welcome to Barack Obama’s America” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Rubio Campaign’s Unseemly Alinsky Tactics Against Cruz

I was among the first national radio hosts to support Marco Rubio in his uphill Republican primary campaign for the Senate against the unprincipled Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Back then, he ran as an unabashed Tea Party conservative. I also supported Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, among others, in their campaigns against the entrenched GOP establishment. But soon after arriving in Washington, Rubio decided to throw in with these politicians – including John McCain and Lindsey Graham and take an active leadership role in the Gang of Eight fiasco. As he runs for the Republican presidential nomination, Rubio has attempted to redefine his position on immigration yet again, resulting in his utter incoherence on the subject.

Moreover, Rubio’s views on foreign policy are also more in line with McCain-Graham pseudo-conservativism. It is a kind of naïve and radical interventionism, involving endless demands for American ground forces, that President Ronald Reagan would never have supported – and did not. For example, Rubio’s support for the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, joining with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and, of course, McCain and Graham, has not led to democracy. Instead, Libya has become another extremely dangerous and growing stronghold for Islamic terrorists and a direct threat to our country. “Democracy projects” have also led to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, ushering in the current Islamic terrorist state that directly threatens America, as well as the more recent rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which was eventually ousted by the Egyptian military, and so forth. Democracy requires more than an election. It requires, first and foremost, a civil society. I’ve talked about this a great length on my radio program.

But my commentary here is not intended as a thorough analysis of immigration and foreign policies, which may come in a later essay. This is a friendly warning to Marco Rubio and his campaign donors, advisers, and consultants that they cannot wash away some of Rubio’s less than stellar legislative actions and related positions and pronouncements by embracing and unleashing Saul Alinsky-type tactics against Ted Cruz or other conservatives. Such unprincipled ambition has not and will not go unnoticed by conservatives.

Rather than proudly standing on his own record, and contrasting his positions honestly with those of Cruz, the latter of whom is clearly the more conservative and anti-establishment candidate, Rubio and his surrogates have launched a propaganda campaign against Cruz in a deceitful attempt to distort his record. As an activist in Ronald Reagan’s 1976 and 1980 primary and general election campaigns for president, I can tell you this is also something Reagan did not do as he was proud of his record and sought a true battle over ideas with the GOP establishment and liberal Democrats. However, his primary and general election opponents over the years — Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, or Walter Mondale — preferred the route Rubio has now taken – distortion and personal smears.

The “Cruz voted against Israel” Smear

Now let’s get to specifics. Did you know that Ted Cruz is not supportive of Israel? For anyone who has followed Cruz’s career, it would be like accusing Jeff Sessions of supporting amnesty. Oh wait, Rubio has already done that.

The Rubio campaign has also accused Cruz of being weak on immigration, weak on national security, and even supportive of Syria’s Assad! And we conservatives are supposedly so stupid we will fall for all of it!

At each stage, there has been an almost seamless coordination with Republican establishment media at the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Weekly Standard and Commentary Magazine, to do the bidding of the Rubio campaign – no matter how false and preposterous the assertion.

Late last week, the Weekly Standard obsequiously peddled the Rubio campaign attack that Cruz voted to cut funding for Israel’s defense as part of his support for Rand Paul’s budget in 2013. The Rubio transcribers there are claiming that the Paul budget, which balanced the budget in 5 years, “among other cuts, slashed defense funding and international aid, including aid to Israel.”

This is breathtakingly dishonest. Aside from Cruz and Paul, 16 other Republicans, including Mike Lee, Tom Coburn and Jeff Sessions, voted for the budget. The notion that one can pull out any single provision of a massive budget, which doesn’t set policy, in order to attack an opponent is wittingly disingenuous, as witnessed by some of the pro-Israel conservative champions who voted for it.

Indeed, the Weekly Standard omitted that the Paul budget zeroed out all aid to Israel’s enemies and terrorist entities like the Palestinians. If it is fair to say Cruz voted against aid for Israel by supporting the broader Paul budget, it is equally fair to say that Rubio voted to continue aiding anti-Israel governments and terrorists because he opposed the Paul budget. It would then be also equally fair to suggest that Rubio opposes a balanced budget. The Rubio campaign’s notion that Cruz opposes Israel’s Iron Dome program because it was one provision in the massive National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which he voted against, is also absurd. There have been many reasons to oppose the NDAA that include both the policy and the actual process. For example, last year’s 1,648 page NDAA bill was voted on less than two days after the text was posted online and contained a massive federal land grab. Or the time Harry Reid allowed only 2 amendment votes on arguably the most important annual bill. And each time the future of the Iron Dome was not hinging upon passage of this entire bill. Rubio and his media cheerleaders know it.

But we need not focus on one line item of a broader, more important, balanced budget vote. A cursory glance at Cruz’s brief career in the Senate reveals a record of standing for Israel on more fronts and with more force than any other senator in modern history, including Rubio, who is undoubtedly a supporter of Israel as well.

There was perhaps no vote that had a more deleterious effect on Israel than the nomination by Obama of John Kerry for Secretary of State. Rubio supported the nomination and voted to confirm Kerry. Cruz was one of only three Republicans to oppose him. And Kerry has been an unmitigated disaster across a wide range of foreign policy issues.

Cruz’s other pro-Israel actions include:

A bill to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem

Using his subcommittee chairmanship to conduct hearings on Obama’s refusal to follow a court order and grant restitution to American victims of terror in Israel.

Introducing legislation to designate the Muslim Brotherhood, a sister of Hamas, as a terror group.

During the Israel-Hamas war, when Obama imposed a de facto travel embargo on Israel, Cruz shut it down within 24 hours after he threatened to block all State Department nominees from confirmation.

Nobody did more to fight the Iran deal harnessing every messaging tool at his disposal.

Where is Rubio’s Voice?

Which brings us to the next logical question. Cruz has used his committee assignments, legislation, floor speeches, and media appearances to fight against Obama’s war on Israel. By Rubio’s own admission, he has for the most part checked out of the Senate and as such has been MIA for fights on many of these important issues.

Rubio would be wise to focus on what he has done for conservatives on national security or any other issue. But this is where he may be having some difficulty. His record is thin. As I mentioned earlier, Rubio’s major legislative achievement in the Senate was the Gang of Eight travesty. This bill would have created permanent open borders, invited back countless dangerous aliens who were already deported, and created an unlimited new pipeline of immigration and refugees from the Middle East.

To this day, Rubio defends his Gang of Eight role, while simultaneously trying to distance himself from aspects of the bill. Last week, he also refused to vote for Rand Paul’s plan to pause the flow of refugees entering our country from the Middle East or other areas of the world where terrorism is pervasive. Given ISIS’s promise to hide terrorists among refugees, including those from Syria, which they accomplished in the recent slaughter in Paris, and the incompetence of the Obama’s administration’s vetting processes, prudence should have guided Rubio to vote for the Paul plan – if he is the national security hawk he and his media surrogates claims him to be.

Furthermore, the notion that Rubio is little different from Cruz on immigration, as suggested by Rubio and his campaign, ignores the dichotomy between the two of them on every aspect of this issue. Cruz fought tooth and nail to block the Gang of Eight bill. Rubio championed it. Cruz has led the fight against DACA, DAPA, sanctuary cities, and Obama’s lawless refugee policies, while Rubio has remained largely silent. The truth matters.

Rubio’s NSA Hit on Cruz

Rubio has accused opponents of the earlier NSA metadata collection system, in particular Cruz, of being national security doves. In fact, he has even warned them that if the country is attacked as a result of the new law’s judicial review requirement, which was spearheaded by Mike Lee and voted for by, among others, Cruz, they will be responsible for weakening the nation’s defense. Yet there’s not even one example of the earlier metadata collection system stopping terrorism. In the latest terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Rubio fails to mention that despite the telephonic activities, apparently the killers somehow avoided NSA notice. There are honest disagreements about this program, based on legitimate constitutional issues, but to insist that constitutional conservatives, like Cruz, who backed a modified metadata program are weak on defending America is contemptible. As Rubio knows, Sen. Steve Daines voted with Cruz, as did Sen. Cory Gardner, both of whom are supporting Rubio.

For now, I will stop here. Marco Rubio is a talented man who can potentially contribute a lot to this presidential race in the remaining months. But that will only happen if he abandons his Alinsky tactics for a more Reaganesque approach and treats the conservative electorate with the respect it deserves. If Rubio is proud of his record, then he should defend it. If he objects to Cruz’s record, he should challenge it. But stop falsifying both. (For more from the author of “The Rubio Campaign’s Unseemly Alinsky Tactics Against Cruz” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Liberal Lies Undermining America

The Liberal Lies

‘Wealth Transfer’ is justified and productive, i.e., ‘From Each According to Ability to Each According to Need’

‘Climate Change’ (AKA ‘Global Warming’) is ‘Man-Caused,’ which is ‘Settled Science’

‘Islam is an Abrahamic Religion,’ as well as a ‘Religion of Peace’

‘Multiculturalism’ strengthens America because all cultures are equal and ‘Diversity’ is necessary for ‘Social Fairness’

‘Institutional Racism’ is rampant in America based on ‘White Privilege’

‘Political Correctness’ is necessary to ensure ‘Civil Discourse’ that doesn’t marginalize the disadvantaged

Wealth Transfer

‘Wealth Transfer’ schemes, which have failed spectacularly from the Plymouth Colony near-starvation to the downfall of Soviet Union, have been erroneously validated and defended by the economically ignorant utopians based on ‘social justice’ and ‘economic development.’ The false premises underlying this deleterious, self-defeating economic proposition are ‘fairness’ and the baseless belief that providing economic security will ‘change human nature’ and inspire commitment to work for the common good of the community instead of personal gain. That neither of one of these premises has proved true has foreordained assured systemic collapses wherever ‘wealth transfer’ has been tried since Karl Marx codified ‘wealth transfer’ in the British Library based purely on theory, not empirical historical evidence.

The American people must wake-up soon and understand that the ever-increasing ‘wealth transfers’ into social welfare programs come at the critical costs of depriving the economy of growth capital and national security of necessary funding. This wake-up call should come without difficulty because it should be common sense, but instead ‘wealth transfer’ has had a narcotic-coma effect on the American body politic.

Climate Change/Global Warming

The climate has been changing constantly and drastically, warming and cooling, for the entire 4.5 billion years of earth’s geologic history, while the earliest evidence of human life on earth goes back just 1.8 million years. Therefore, since man has only been present for just the most miniscule portion of earth’s existence, liberals fail to account for the causes of the constant ‘climate change/global warming’ during more than 99% of earth’s being. This deliberate exclusion of the 4.5 billion years of documented ‘climate change/global warming’ from examination or explanation is justified by liberals because anthropogenic ‘climate change/global warming’ is ‘settled science.’ So, the obvious question that the true believing climate changers/global warmists evade answering like the plague is: Since there was radical climate change and global warming/cooling for 99% of the world’s geologic history before man even set foot on the planet, how do liberals scientifically examine and prove that any change of the climate is just not a continuation of the the climatic forces that have always occasioned change? In other words, what is the proof that man has suddenly become more powerful than the forces of the universe and preempted them? Since ‘Greenland’ was obviously originally named ‘Greenland’ because it was verdant landscape, what caused the tremendous climatic change at that north latitude because the change from temperate to arctic long predated mankind’s introduction of industrial quantities of carbon into the atmosphere?

Unfortunately, instead of the sciences of historical geology and climatology that contradict their unproven and unprovable climate beliefs, liberals accept as gospel the ‘settled science’ pronounced by the ‘world renown climatologists’ Barack Hussein Obama, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., and John Forbes Kerry. The liberal inexplicable, unquestioning acceptance of man-caused ‘climate change/global warming’ should not even be tolerated in a 7th grade science class, but nevertheless allegedly educated liberal people are ‘true climate change/global warming believers’! A large segment of the liberal American people has apparently lost the ability to reason logically. Again, a wake-up call is desperately needed.

The Abrahamic Muslim Religion of Peace

It is Islamic dogma that Islam is a ‘religion’ that traces its roots to the Jewish and Christian patriarch Abraham through Abraham’s son Ishmael, who was born of Abraham’s Egyptian slave concubine Hagar. Ishmael’s birth would have occurred circa 2000 B.C. Then in 610 A.D. Mohammad began to concoct the dogma with which he crafted a ‘religion’ that he used to attract, reward, and disciple a mafia-like tribe of cut-throat, desert brigands. So after more than 2,600 years, and with no tangible evidence or even verbal tradition, Mohammad alone in a cave conceived the linkage of Islam’s religious lineage to Abraham in order to tie Islam to the already well-established and respected religions of the Middle East, Judaism and Christianity, for credibility. Mohammad used that credibility to inspire his gang of marauders, which employed pillage, rape, and murder to sustain their ‘religion’ and to recruit more and more new followers to the plunder gained from their caravan raiding banditry.

The entire theology of Islam was purportedly imparted periodically (as Mohammad needed) from Allah to Mohammad through the Angel Gabriel when Mohammad was alone in a cave or alone in other solitary settings. These ‘Allah-dictated revelations’ were supposedly committed to memory by Mohammad and later spewed out to his followers in order to give divine authority to Mohammad’s decisions. Since the ‘Allah-dictated revelations’ were situational and made on-the-fly, there were frequent contradictions from situation to situation. When Mohammad was confronted with these contradictions, he went into solitude, allegedly consulted with Allah and Gabriel, and returned with dictums from Allah to pacify the followers and to explain why the Allah ‘god’ changes his mind.

Quran 2:106 – “We [Allah] do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?”

Quran 13:39: “Allah eliminates what He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book.”

Quran16:101: “And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse – and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down – they say, “You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies].” But most of them do not know.”

These three Quranic verses (suras) explain the ‘Law of Abrogation’ that became necessary when the followers of Muhammad realized that Allah’s instructions were conflicting or inconsistent, so purportedly Allah told Muhammad to tell the Muslims that Allah had changed his mind and was just giving the followers better instructions that replaced earlier instructions or suras.

While the theology of Judaism and Christianity evolved from Moses, a long line of prophets, Jesus, and the apostles, the theology of Islam rests solely on the word of Mohammad, Allah’s one and exclusive prophet. Rather than divine inspiration as the basis of Islamic theology, Islam is decidedly anthropogenic in origin. The difference is apparent time and again, for instance, when the Christian Bible’s instructions to Christians are compared and contrasted with the Islamic Quran’s instructions to Muslims. Perhaps no example of the difference of the divine versus the human is clearer than treatment of one’s enemies. Jesus counselled his followers:

Matthew 5:43-45: 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

While according to Mohammad, Allah counselled his followers:

Quran 8:12 [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.”

It is at this point that the Islamic dogma proclaiming Abrahamic roots of Islam completely falls apart. One needn’t be a religious theologian or a member of Mensa to comprehend that ‘a god’ cannot be the same ‘deity’ when that ‘divine source’ issues completely contradictory instructions to followers on how to behave regarding one’s enemies in exactly the same circumstances. In order to deter non-Muslims in the U.S. and Europe from discovering and discussing that Islam is an anthropocentrically conceived religious cult rather than the claimed Abrahamic religion, the concept of ‘Islamophobia’ was invented to prevent examination of tell-tail evidence like the ‘Law of Abrogation’ and the obvious disparities between the theology of the God of Abraham and the theology of the god of Mohammad. For instance, to even quote verbatim from the Quran in order to illustrate the contradictions of Islam is immediately decried as ‘Islamophobic’ by Muslims and the liberal defenders of Islam!

The reason why it is imperative to discredit ‘Islamophobia” and rip off the Abrahamic mask from Islam is because the alleged common origin of the religions has provided Muslims with entrée into Western Civilization to conduct stealth jihad undermining Western societies from within. Americans must demand that political, religious, and social leaders educate themselves about the Islamic enemy and begin to formulate national security, religious, and social policies that realistically deal with the existential threat of Islam.

Multiculturalism/Diversity’s Debilitating Effects On America

‘Multiculturalism’ is a social weapon conceived by the Cultural Marxist ‘Frankfurt School’ to undermine and destroy Western societies because, in order for a new Marxist culture to take root (see ‘wealth transfer’ above), the existing Western cultural must be destroyed. Under the multicultural rubric that all cultures are equal, Cultural Marxism is attacking:

the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism.

Liberal Democrats have used ‘multiculturalism’ to defend their ‘open border/ illegal alien amnesty’ policies by accusing their rational opponents of ‘bigoted, hateful racism’ for disagreeing with the Democrat stratagem to import a large, low-information, low-skilled population that will become a permanent, welfare-dependent Democrat Party voting constituency. For liberals, ‘multiculturalism’ is all about changing U.S. voting demographics in their favor. The Democrat Party needs a permanent underclass to support its big government welfare.

An equally deleterious conceptual social weapon for undermining Western societies along with ‘multiculturalism’ is ‘diversity.’ The alleged purpose of mandating ‘diversity’ throughout the U.S. and the wider Western world is ‘social fairness’ to give all people equal access to the public arena. However, ‘diversity’ of skin color and/or gender is essentially used as a diversion to preclude ‘diversity’ of opinions, specifically conservative opinion is excluded from idea forums by the liberal forces of so-called ‘diversity.’

The pretenses of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘diversity’ must be challenged and exposed as false each time they are employed to undermine Western culture and exclude conservative ideas from the public forum.

‘Institutional Racism’ born of ‘White Privilege’

‘Institutional racism’ and ‘white privilege’ are two more deleterious conceptual social weapons that have no basis in fact, but they are constantly given lip-service by the forces of liberalism working against traditional America. Barack Obama as president, along with Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch as attorneys general, whose positions at the top of the U.S. Government should make those charges preposterous, but instead these three individuals fed the ‘institutional racism’ and ‘white privilege’ narratives during the ‘Skip Gates’/ ‘Trevon Martin’/ ‘Ferguson’/ ‘Baltimore’ fiascos. Growing from those fiascos the baseless ‘hands up-don’t shoot’ and ‘black lives matter’ memes perpetuate the groundless ‘institutional racism’ and ‘white privilege’ charges.

When three blacks have held the two most important U.S. law enforcement positions for six plus years, one would think that common sense would smash the ‘institutional racism’ and ‘white privilege’ slander, but liberals repudiate common sense whenever common sense invalidates their unsubstantiated, venomous agitprop. Since liberals are obviously immune to common sense, discrediting the ‘institutional racism’ and ‘white privilege’ calumnies will be difficult, so all the practical forces of traditional America can do is to continually proclaim the truth and do the right thing, while directing their common sense message to those Americans that are not low-information, knee-jerk liberals.

‘Political Correctness’ is necessary to ensure ‘Civil Discourse’ that doesn’t marginalize the disadvantaged

‘Political correctness’ is the Cultural Marxist social weapon that makes possible the widespread, unquestioning acceptance of ‘wealth transfer,’ ‘climate change/global warming,’ ‘Abrahamic Muslim religion of peace,’ ‘multiculturalism/diversity,’ and ‘Institutional racism/white privilege.’ ‘Political correctness’ in the U.S. today is self-censorship that is eerily reminiscent of the politically-sterilized life described in George Orwell’s ‘1984.’ The effect of ‘political correctness’ is that:

genuine moral discourse on difficult social issues can become impossible when the risks of upsetting some portion of one’s audience are too great. Reliance on euphemism and platitude should be expected in this strategic climate.

When a problem cannot be honestly and correctly identified, resolution of the problem is impossible.

Conclusion

Since ‘political correctness’ self-censorship is the fundamental reason why all of the liberal lies are succeeding in undermining America, it is the first obstacle that must be removed. Not until honest discourse is returned to the American political, intellectual, religious, and social idea-marketplaces can Americans break the liberal death-grips of ‘wealth transfer,’ ‘climate change/global warming,’ ‘Abrahamic Muslim religion of peace,’ ‘multiculturalism/diversity,’ ‘Institutional racism/white privilege’ and ‘political correctness’ that are inhibiting America’s progress by stifling or misdirecting national efforts. (For more from the author of “The Liberal Lies Undermining America” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Most Frightening Thing About a Hillary Clinton Presidency

Rumors of Hillary Clinton’s poor physical and mental condition have persisted for years.

Last month, State Department emails obtained by Judicial Watch revealed that Clinton’s close personal aide Huma Abedin (who has well-documented ties to the terror group the Muslim Brotherhood) warned colleagues that Clinton’s mental stability appeared to be deteriorating:

Abedin advised Clinton aide and frequent companion Monica Hanley that it was “very important” to go over phone calls with Clinton because the former Secretary of State was “often confused…”

The emails, from Abedin’s “[email protected]” address, also reveal repeated security breaches, with the Secretary’s schedule and movements being sent and received through Abedin’s non-governmental and unsecured Clinton server account…

… The emails document requests for special State Department treatment for a Clinton Foundation associate and Abedin’s mother, a controversial Islamist leader.

This week, on three separate occasions, Clinton seemed to affirm Abedin’s cautions, demonstrating significant confusion that raised the eyebrows of the media:

“Talking Iran, Hillary gets confused about the nuclear option and military option”

“Hillary Clinton Can’t Remember Her Plan To Deal With the National Debt”

“Hillary Clinton confuses question on ‘hemp’ with one on a ‘hip replacement’”

So we have a potential president who appears to have obvious and troubling issues with mental acuity.

Furthermore, her most trusted personal aide and proxy, Huma Abedin, is linked — both directly and through family ties — to the terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood, in addition to being a notorious sponsor of Islamic terror worldwide, traces its lineage directly back to Nazi Germany.

So one does not have to be overly paranoid to imagine that Hillary’s personal version of Valerie Jarrett, i.e., a senior aide reputed to make many of the decisions in the White House, would be a potential Islamist sympathizer and/or conspirator.

Vote accordingly. (For more from the author of “The Most Frightening Thing About a Hillary Clinton Presidency” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Come Get Me, Loretta

During her confirmation hearing in January, Attorney General Loretta Lynch declared that every illegal alien has “the right and the obligation to work” in this country.

Lynch displayed a callous arrogance for the most foundational principle of law enforcement, the sovereignty of this country and the protection of the American citizens. She completely disregarded federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1225), which requires ICE to place aliens who are not “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” to the United States into removal proceedings. It is therefore not surprising that she has recently expressed antipathy to our sacred First Amendment right to free speech.

While refusing to call San Bernardino an Islamic terror attack, Lynch promised radical supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood last week that she would bring legal action against “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence.” Much like her European counterparts, Lynch is more committed to cracking down on those who express concern about the growing Islamic supremacism in this country than cracking down on the Islamic supremacists themselves, some of whom were in the very audience she addressed that night.

Well, Ms. Lynch, as someone who has been raising concerns about the growing Islamic immigration and the anti-American and anti-Semitic culture that has become ubiquitous throughout our country, you are welcome to investigate me. Come get me, Loretta!

It is downright appalling that Lynch would contrive a false narrative about a trend of hate crimes against Muslims when the reality is that Jews are the ones who are victims of the most hate crimes (whatever a hate crime means). According to the most recent FBI data, 56.8% of anti-religious hate crimes in 2014 were perpetrated against Jews, whereas Muslims accounted for just 16.1% of hate crime victims. In fact, the rate of hate crimes against Muslims in the U.S. has not increased one iota since 9/11, despite the rampant growth of Islamic terror attacks.

For Lynch to never utter a word about hate crimes against Jews yet focus on Muslims is transparently tendentious behavior on the part of the chief law enforcement officer.

And, speaking of anti-Jewish sentiment, what is behind the growing Jew hatred in the world and in America?

Last week, the Chief Rabbi of Brussels declared that there is no future for Jews in Europe. Why is that so? Undoubtedly, it is because of the suicidal immigration policies that have led to the Islamic takeover of so many European cities. Jews can no longer live safely in areas that are overrun by large Muslim populations.

America has always stood as the lone beacon of freedom, tolerance, and promise for Jews. It has stood out as the one country that is decisively and sentimentally supportive of Israel, even as the rest of the western world surreptitiously schemes against its survival. Yet, with the record Islamic immigration, that support is beginning to change, most evident on college campuses, which have become saturated with Muslim foreign students.

What is so revealing about the San Bernardino incident is not just the Islamo-Nazi views of the perpetrator, Syed Farook, but the views of his family.

In an interview with the Italian daily La Stampa, Farook’s father said that his son was “obsessed” with his hatred for Jews and Israel. So what did Papa Farook think about this?

“I told him he had to stay calm and be patient because in two years Israel will not exist any more. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China and America don’t want Jews there any more. They are going to bring the Jews back to Ukraine. What is the point of fighting? We have already done it and we lost. Israel is not to be fought with weapons, but with politics.”

This is the type of mentality, culture, and political values we are importing to our shores through mass immigration from the Middle East. We are following in the footsteps of Europe. And remember, Papa Farook was one of the earlier Muslim immigrants and came of age before the internet and cyber jihad, and at a time when there were few Muslims in America. One can only imagine the political values of a large number of recent immigrants from the Middle East who have come here at a clip of over 100,000 per year.

What about Farook’s mother? The Daily Caller is reporting that she is a member of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), an Islamic supremacist group that follows the teachings of Maulana Mawdudi and the Jamaat Al-Islami of Pakistan. Maulana has said that Jews will be exterminated in the end of days.

At the beginning of the Revolutionary War, Sam Adams spoke before a large audience at the State House in Philadelphia urging them to fight for freedom. He predicted that “our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty.”

While this rings true today for all Americans, the notion of America as the last remaining “asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty” is perhaps more poignant for Jews than for anyone else. As America faces the existential threat of Islamic fascism, all our religious and civil liberties are threatened by the importation of Sharia and its virulently anti-Jewish intolerance.

So go ahead, Ms. Lynch. Come after the millions of patriotic Americans who stand for religious liberty and will fight until the bitter end to ensure America doesn’t become as unhospitable to Jews as Europe.

We’re waiting for you. (For more from the author of “Come Get Me, Loretta” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.