Most Idiotic Aspects of the Paris Global Warming Conference

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Paris UN conference, known as COP21, is upon us; a darkening gloom gathers; apprehension builds. It was therefore a tense and important moment Sunday at Charles de Gaulle airport when China President Xi Jin-ping stepped off his airplane into a sea of cameras. The Communist-party approved announcer said Xi was in Paris to “combat climate change.”

This is my entry for the Most Asinine Statement About Global Warming. I admit that it has stiff competition. With politicians, bureaucrats, activists and, bottoming out the list, mainstream reporters converging on the City of Light to try and convince the world that the sky has long since fallen, and that the only way to prop it back up is to spend, spend, spend your money, the idiocy is going to fly thick and fast. My humble entry might therefore not appear to stand a chance. But it’s a sure winner, as I’ll prove in a moment.

But first, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, doubtless upset President Xi had scored first, and, eager not to be blamed for a widening asininity gap between these two up-and-coming carbon-fueled economic powerhouses, retorted that the West suffered from “climate imperialism.”

India needs cheap, reliable, plentiful and almost completely harmless coal to survive, let alone compete with its neighbor to the north(east). But politicians and oil companies are gunning for coal, it being the easiest target. India would be in some pretty deep kimchi if it were strong-armed into switching to more expensive energy sources. So Modi wisely had his chief economic adviser float the imperialism phrase. It’s a short-hand way of saying, “Say whatever you want. You got yours, and now we’re going to get ours.” God bless India.

Laurent Fabius, French minister of foreign affairs, and no piker in the silly sayings department, said, “The coffins containing those slain by les voyous ISIS have been removed from the main meeting hall so the global warming conference can start on time.”

Kidding! He actually said negotiators would be browbeaten into signing an agreement that was “universal, legally binding, durable and dynamic.” This sounds imposing, but that’s because the English translation misses the nuances of the original French. A more careful rendition notes that “durable and dynamic” means “the words on le papier will mean whatever we want them to.” Which is not bad news when you think about it.

Community-Organizer-in-Chief Barack Obama said that the global warming conference would be a “rebuke” to the Allahu Akbarists who bloodied the streets of Paris. Surely he’s right about this. In fact, Mr. Obama might have been behind the recently leaked CIA documents containing top secret chatter from terrorist cells embedded in the Syrian refugees he is so intent on importing to our shores.

One transcript ran:

“Hey, Achmed. They’re going through with COP21 even though we killed all those people.”

“I feel so rebuked. I shall never kill again.”

Meanwhile, ignoramuses who couldn’t integrate ex if you pointed a gun at their heads (and, as we know, this is not now an impossibility) broke an agreement with President Hollande to keep off the streets and ran amok in Paris, taunting les flics to try and stop them. Which the cops were happy to do, squirting tear gas and pepper spray at their large noses.

Now not one of these activists or politicians could tell you why the sky is blue, yet each is certain sure doom is just around the next corner, an apocalypse to be caused by a few stray carbon dioxide molecules released every time we exhale. Their monumental ignorance, coupled with a dose of hubris lethal to ordinary men, is what is causing them to utter such historical stupidities like “We must combat” or “stop climate change.”

Nothing can stop the climate from changing. Nothing. I don’t care how much you care. It doesn’t matter if you confiscated every farthing from every earthing and flung it into the air. It wouldn’t even make a difference if you convinced everybody to jump into a (not-so) giant hole and buried them. The earth’s climate would go right on changing, changing, changing. It cannot be stopped. Not ever.

Whatever comes out of Paris will not make one whit of difference to the climate. To claim that some flimsy piece of paper will stop the unstoppable, or even that we can hold temperatures back 2 degrees C when we can’t even predict what next year will be like, is not science. It is not even science fiction. It is a true French farce. (For more from the author of “Most Idiotic Aspects of the Paris Global Warming Conference” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What to Do in an Active Shooter Situation

/2 Comments/in , /by

In today’s article, I share expert-backed advice on how best to react if you ever find yourself in a situation with an active shooter. Learning how to survive a shooting is much like learning how to survive an airplane crash: such an event is statistically unlikely to happen to you, and simple chance may make you a victim before you’re able to take any volitional action. But if there are things you can do to increase your odds of survival even slightly, you ought to know and practice them.

Something to Keep in Mind: You’re Probably On Your Own

In a study done by the FBI in 2014, it was discovered that most active shootings end in 2 minutes or less. That’s not enough time for law enforcement to arrive. So when you start hearing gunshots in places you shouldn’t be hearing gunshots, understand that you don’t have very much time to think about what you should do . . .

When any sort of emergency situation strikes, be it an active shooter or even a fire, the natural response for most people, surprisingly enough, is not to do anything. We highlighted several of the reasons for this passivity in our article about why most people freeze up in emergency situations. For example, the “normalcy bias” causes victims to act like everything is fine even though things are far from it. Our brain is predisposed to assume that things will carry on in a predictable way. When the pattern is broken, it takes a long time for the brain to process this aberration. This is why many people who witness traumatic events report that it felt surreal, like they were watching a movie and it wasn’t really happening. They also often say that at first they thought the gunshots were fireworks or a car backfiring or a book falling — things that would fit better in their usual paradigm of daily life.

Another bias that keeps us from taking action is our natural tendency to follow the crowd. If we see that everyone else is cowering in fear or locked up by inertia, then our natural tendency is to act the same. (Read more from “What to Do in an Active Shooter Situation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Our Leaders Have Spoken: Global Warming Causes Terrorism

/10 Comments/in , /by

So global warming caused ISIS to dispatch a team of bloodthirsty malevolent maniacs to Paris to slaughter as many non-Muslims, and to gain as much publicity, as possible. Bernie Sanders said so.

Who remembers when members of ISIS placed a man in the path of a tank, ran the tank over the man popping him like a balloon, and then ISIS posted videos bragging of it? Global warming made them do it. Hillary Clinton says so.

Hey: how about when ISIS corralled a group of Christian women living in Syria and then raped a goodly proportion of them to death and shot a few others for fun? Global warming again. And let’s not forget the many times orange-clad men were led to a beach to have their heads shaved off by ISIS. Allahu Akbar? No! Global Warming!

This isn’t me saying it. It’s Barack Obama. He said global warming is the biggest threat we face. But Mr. Obama was only echoing his betters who will gather in two weeks in Paris to decide the pre-determined conclusion that global warming is a security threat of such magnitude that we are forced to sign over control of significant portions of our economies to the United Nations. (Of course, our dear leaders will say climate change and not global warming, but we won’t make that mistake.)

What a sight it will be! Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, David Cameron, even Francois Hollande himself, will march somberly through blood-stained streets, file past the many coffins from the Paris attack, proceed to the UN’s padded conference room, and there from on high they will announce to the world that the horrors they have witnessed were caused by global warming. And that if we don’t act now, global warming will cause more men to suddenly wake one morning and say to themselves, “I will kill in the name of Allah.”

Global warming! Is there nothing it cannot do?

That is a rhetorical question, friends. The answer is clear to any thinking person. Global warming can do anything. Well, any bad thing. Global warming cannot do good things.

Only problem is, there hasn’t been any global warming for almost twenty years. Oh, the temperature has bounced around a bit, up one year, down the next, but it hasn’t been advancing as climatologists have promised us. Know what that means? You guessed it. Global warming is even more powerful than we could have imagined!

Yes: not only is actual global warming deadly, even the thought of it can cause men to kill. Since the globe did not in fact warm, but global warming surely caused ISIS to commit atrocity after atrocity — our leaders could not be wrong on so fundamental a point — it must then be that just sitting and contemplating what might happen is what caused these fanatics to spring into action.

Global warming, we’re told, is also going to cause more deaths by natural disasters. It hasn’t done so yet, but it will. Actually, deaths due to natural disasters such as wildfires, tornadoes, extreme temperatures, droughts and storms are at a ridiculously low level compared to a century ago. Just as a for instance, storms killed about about 1 out of every million people in 1900, but this fell to about half that many by 2010. (Don’t forget the world population rose from about 1.65 billion in 1900 to about 6.7 billion in 2010, so you have to normalize deaths by population.)

There were no recorded deaths by drought in 2010, but there were some 126-thousand deaths in 1900, way before global warming wrapped its heated tentacles around the earth. Deaths by drought are important because, our leaders tell us, it was drought and heat that caused the Syrian conflict, which in turn caused the refugee crisis. Of course, it wasn’t actual drought and heat, because Syrian weather has been near average (wheat production, for instance, is up), so once again it was only the promise of future doom that counted.

This future doom is no small thing. ISIS gleefully announced that it used the promise-of-global-warming-caused refugee crisis to smuggle “thousands” of cutthroats into Europe. How many they’re sneaking into New Orleans, where Mr. Obama has directed our share of Syrians to go, has not yet been determined.

Gets mighty warm and sticky down in the Big Easy. Thoughts can’t help but turn to what it would be like if, as promised, the temperatures soar another one- to two-tenths of a degree by mid century. Who could possibly tolerate a shift as dramatic as that? Besides my parents, who migrate from Michigan to Florida each winter for its warming climes? If President Obama is serious about the link between global warming and terrorism, perhaps he should send Muslim refugees from Syria, among whom are surely ISIS agents, to Siberia. Vladimir Putin won’t mind watching over them. (For more from the author of “Our Leaders Have Spoken: Global Warming Causes Terrorism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Choosing National Suicide

/5 Comments/in , /by

As Winston Churchill noted in his indictment of appeasement of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, “there is a great danger in refusing to believe things you do not like.”

Barack Hussein Obama is succeeding in his fundamental transformation; that is, dismantling the United States as a capitalist republic, based on Judeo-Christian democratic principles.

Obama is dangerous as a President because his ideologies, Marxism and sympathy for Islam, drive him to pursue policies that run counter to the national interest, the well-being of the American people and, quite frankly, the survival of the country. His mendacity is compounded by his arrogance and narcissism that prevent him from accepting responsibility and learning from his mistakes. He is not on our side.

(Listen to yesterday’s interview between Joe Miller and the author of this article:)

People ask – How can this be happening to our country? What can we do to stop it?

It can happen because the political-media establishment does not consider the United States “our” country. The political-media establishment considers the United States “their” country, in which ordinary Americans are permitted to live as long as we elect those they want elected and continue to pay taxes to support their lavish life styles and to maintain the corrupt status quo. Welcome to feudal America.

It can happen because, like Obama, the Democrat Party, the liberal media and academia are populated with the same Islamo-Marxists, a totalitarian marriage of convenience, distinguished by the traits they share – their hatred of Western civilization and a belief that the United States is the embodiment of evil on earth. While Islamic radicals seek to purge the world of heresies and of the infidels who practice them, leftist radicals seek to purge society of the vices allegedly spawned by capitalism — those being racism, sexism, imperialism, and greed. Through unregulated immigration, Democrats seek to alter the demographics of the United States to create a permanent one-party state to implement their far-left totalitarian agenda. Islamists have something similar in mind, albeit even more brutal and oppressive.

It can happen because America’s domestic enemies promulgate notions that attack the basis of Western Judeo-Christian civilization, which emphasizes the uniqueness and sacredness of the individual. They also promote policies that weaken our ability to transmit to the next generation the values and traditions upon which the United States was built e.g. the Common Core assault on American education. Anti-American, messianic political movements can only succeed when the individual believes that his or her actions are determined, not by personal freedom endowed by the Creator, but by the destiny of the community, endowed by a ruling elite of commissars or mullahs.

In can happen in any otherwise sophisticated society that loses a sense of its own history, succumbs to a present-tense culture and embraces the false promises of a leftist utopia in order to generate the truly blissed-out and vacant servitude required by the Obama strategy. Using media deception and historical revisionism, the low-information voter will slouch towards Obama’s utopia by a combination of governmental coercion as in George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and the hedonist nihilism of a painless, amusement-sodden, and stress-free consensus managed by the nanny-state found in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.

It can happen because the Republican establishment and its propaganda arm, Fox News, choose not to expose and oppose Obama to any extent that it might place in jeopardy their position as junior partners in the corrupt political-media status quo. They are funded by and serve the Chamber of Commerce and a broader class of wealthy global financiers, locusts, who view America as just another landmass and people to exploit. Republicans are not in Congress to represent their constituency or solve the nation’s problems, but to perpetuate themselves in office. As the Republican establishment’s grip on power becomes ever more tenuous, they will more aggressively oppose internal political challenges, whether it is from Donald Trump or the Tea Party and they more eagerly work together with Obama and the Democrats.

Case in point is the cynical piece of legislative window dressing, but appropriately-named SAFE ACT (American Security Against Foreign Enemies), recently passed by a bipartisan “veto-proof” 289-137 majority in the Paul Ryan (R-WI)-led House of Representatives. It is being heralded by the political-media establishment as a bill that would “erect high hurdles for Syrian and Iraqi refugees coming to American shores” and “require new FBI background checks and individual sign-offs from three high-ranking U.S. officials before any refugee could come to the U.S. from Iraq or Syria.” Those descriptions are nonsensical at best, outright lies at worst. FBI Director James Comey already testified before the House Committee on Homeland Security that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct thorough background checks for terrorist ties on all Syrian refugees. The legislation does not cover potential terrorists coming from countries other than Iraq and Syria. Finally, the SAFE ACT gives final approval authority for entry solely to the Obama Administration, which has vowed to flood the country with refugees i.e. to facilitate a Muslim invasion of the U.S. similar to that we are witnessing in Europe, all financed by George Soros. The SAFE ACT does not provide physical safety for the American people, but it does provide political safety for the Republican establishment in the form of disinformation and legislative legerdemain.

In essence, the Republican establishment, in choosing to collaborate with Obama and the Democrats, is choosing national suicide. They prefer that option to representative government.
What can we do to stop it?

More than anything else, the political-media establishment does not want the American people to take back our country. The legislation, executive orders and judicial decisions emanating from Washington D.C. are geared to maintain the status quo or enhance the power of the federal government over the American people.

More than any other time in our history has the separation between the rulers and the ruled been as great and it bears comparison to the events leading up to the American Revolution. Whenever the interests of government officials are in such stark conflict with those of the people, tyranny ensues.

Frederick Douglass wrote: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

I think the American people are running out of words. (For more from the author of “Choosing National Suicide” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Pro-Lifers Oppose Violence Against Abortion Clinics

/1 Comment/in , /by

Thanksgiving weekend was marred by news of a mass shooting at a shopping center in Colorado Springs, CO, which wounded nine and claimed the lives of three people, including Garrett Swasey, a police officer, church deacon, and pro-life Christian. Pro-choice reporters jumped immediately to conclusions about the motives of the shooter, even before he was captured, because one of the nearby businesses is a Planned Parenthood clinic, whose employee placed the 911 call. Even as terrified shoppers ran for cover, Twitter filled with politicized sneers about “white Christian terrorists,” an apparent slam at citizens worried at the influx of Syrian Muslims.

There is no evidence that the suspect, Robert L. Dear, who was also shooting at passing cars, has connections with any pro-life organization or even a church. Dear does have a record of brushes with the law; he was arrested once for apparent voyeurism at a neighbor’s house, and later arrested for shooting that neighbor’s guard dog — though Dear was never convicted. President Obama used the incident to issue yet another call for restrictions on citizens’ gun rights.

So it looks as if Dear is not a “Christian terrorist,” but rather the kind of random psycho who leers into neighbor’s windows and shoots their dogs. But some phrase Dear allegedly muttered about “baby parts” will be enough for pro-choicers to tie this deranged hermit’s shooting spree to the “atmosphere of intimidation” that was allegedly created by the Center for Medical Progress’ investigative videos, which revealed Planned Parenthood employees trafficking in human body parts. Every random empty threat that some loner phoned in to a clinic — the kind of threat that Christian ministries also receive, but rarely trumpet — will now be dragged out as “evidence” that pro-lifers are suborning acts of violence by using our free speech rights to seek a change in America’s laws.

We have seen such tactics used before in America by the unjustly privileged. White racists defending segregation called civil rights demonstrators “lawbreakers,” and tried to tie peaceful protesters to Communists and terrorists. Long before that, politicians in slave states outlawed abolitionist newspapers and imprisoned those who wrote for them, accusing them of fomenting slave revolts. So now pro-life activists will suffer those kinds of attacks.

But there are deeper reasons why pro-choicers so quickly jump at any hint of clinic violence to tar peaceful pro-lifers, and why pro-lifers respond so vigorously to denounce these incidents. We don’t like to talk about these reasons, because we want to keep the civil peace, and to stay as far as possible from even the hint of advocating violence. That’s a very healthy instinct. But sometimes it must give way to a frank conversation, like the one below, between a pro-choicer (Margaret) and a pro-lifer (Susan):

Margaret: The kind of rhetoric and graphic images that you people use is bound to provoke this kind of violence.

Susan: Our rhetoric matches the facts. Each year, a million innocent children are murdered in America. Those pictures are of the victims. Does the reality of abortion trouble you? It ought to. Should we collude in sanitizing it? I won’t.

Margaret: The way you people talk about abortion providers, I’m surprised that violent attacks don’t happen more often.

Susan: Well, there are reasons that they don’t.

Margaret: What are they? It seems to me that if you really believed your own words, if you thought that every Planned Parenthood clinic was no different from a Nazi extermination camp, you wouldn’t be condemning people who attacked them. You’d be applauding them. Since you aren’t, that means that you secretly agree with us. You know that fetuses don’t have the same rights as their mothers, or else you’d favor fighting to protect the fetuses.

Susan: We do fight, within the law — just as abolitionists fought within the law to protect the rights of slaves.

Margaret: But why would you be satisfied with that, if you really, really believed that abortion is murder?

Susan: We don’t “believe” that. We know it, as we know that people of different races are equally human. It’s not a matter of opinion, or known only to Christians. It’s the only rational conclusion to draw from the medical evidence.

Margaret: Fine, then you “know” that abortion is murder, but you’re not willing to do anything about it.

Susan: We do quite a lot. You’ll see us every Saturday morning praying outside clinics, you’ll meet us on Capitol Hill, you’ll spot us stuffing envelopes and thronging the Iowa Caucuses. The Center for Medical Progress used investigative journalism to unmask Planned Parenthood’s organ trafficking.

Margaret: That’s the kind of thing you do when you want to balance the federal budget, or tweak immigration totals. But this is mass murder, according to you. If you saw your neighbor trying to kill his teenage daughter, you wouldn’t picket his house with a sign. You’d run over there and use force to stop him.

Susan: That’s true. But what if I lived in a country like Pakistan, where honor killings are tolerated, and the police turn a blind eye? In a country like that, if I intervened violently to stop an honor killing, the police might well shoot me. A mob might attack my family. So my only option would be to muster superior force, get a mob of people willing to fight against the other family and the police. In other words, to start a small-scale civil war.

Margaret: Well, sometimes civil war is justified. It took one to end slavery.

Susan: But notice who started that war — the slaveowners, when the law threatened to turn against them. They knew, in their guts, that slavery is wrong, just as you know that abortion is. They were in the habit of using violence against the innocent, flogging and raping slaves, and were ready to harness violence to defend their evil privilege. But so few abolitionists used violence that we remember the names of those who did: John Brown, and his small band of followers, who tried to start a slave revolt.

Margaret: Would that slave revolt have been justified?

Susan: Its cause would have been just. But you need much more than a worthy cause to embark on something as grave and deadly as a war — especially a civil war.

Margaret: Oh yeah? What else do you need?

Susan: I’d follow the Just War tradition, which sees war as the very last resort, and sets a long list of conditions.

Margaret: So what are they?

Susan: Here you go:

the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

there must be serious prospects of success;

the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. (CCC 2309)

Margaret: And you don’t think that starting a civil war to end abortion meets those conditions?

Susan: On #1, I’d say absolutely — a million children murdered every year. But #2 is certainly arguable. Despite pro-choicers’ use of an activist court to take abortion out of the hands of voters, we still do have the chance to replace Supreme Court justices who corrupt the Constitution, or we can try to amend it. Your side’s anti-democratic effort to rule through the courts will fail, I believe, in the end.

But it’s #3 and #4 that clinch the case. It’s horrible to think about a civil war waged in America over any cause, even this one. I certainly can’t pretend to say which side might win. More importantly, the destruction and death that would come in such a war might very well outweigh the evil of abortion. What would happen to our country’s nuclear arsenal? Millions might die. Families would be torn apart. We would plunge our nation into poverty and ruin.

Margaret: So that’s why you’re against vigilantes using force to stop abortion?

Susan: Exactly. Not because abortion isn’t murder, which it is. Not because violence is always wrong, because it isn’t. But because clinic violence is an act of civil war. We have not exhausted all non-violent means of fighting this evil. The violent means might fail, and the destruction that they would cause would outweigh even the horror of a million dead children each year.

It’s appalling that we even have to speak of such things in America. But that’s not prolifers’ fault. We’re not the ones who favor mass killing in every city in America, who sell human beings dismembered to medical labs, and hide behind the courts because the voters aren’t with us. We’re not the side favoring violence, though it suits your side to accuse us of it. Psychologists have a name for that. It’s “projection.” (For more from the author of “Why Pro-Lifers Oppose Violence Against Abortion Clinics” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Planned Parenthood Shooting and Anti-Christian Hysteria

/1 Comment/in , /by

As expected, no sooner had blood been spilled at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado than accusations of “Christian terrorism” began to fly across the internet, despite the fact that: 1) no motive had been announced; 2) there was no hint of a connection between the murderer and any pro-life organization; and 3) pro-life leaders immediately denounced the killings as soon as the news was released.

In the words of Jason Benham, posting on Twitter, “True pro-lifers care about all life, including employees and clients of #PlannedParenthood. Praying for those in #ColoradoSpringsShooting.”

Or, as stated by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, “While the investigation into the shooting at the Planned Parenthood center continues, regardless of what the motive is determined to be, we strongly condemn this violence. . . . Only through peaceful means –not violence— can we truly become a nation that once again values all human life, born and unborn.”

In contrast, Bette Midler was quick to point a finger, also using Twitter: “Thanks to overheated screeds spewing from the mouths of the GOP, and in Congress, innocent people have died in CO, including a policeman.” And, “We share the concerns of many Americans that extremists are creating a poisonous environment that feeds domestic terrorism in this country.”

Others began to ask me on Facebook when I was going to denounce “Christian terrorism,” just as I regularly denounce Islamic terrorism, with one man asking me about “apparent Christian terrorist Robert Lewis Dear.” (Dear was the shooter, who ultimately surrendered to police.)

A blogger on the Patheos website went as far as stating that, “Christian terrorism is a bigger threat to U.S. freedom than Islamic extremism.”

He concluded his article with these startling (and, plainly, ridiculous) words: “Today’s attack is an act of religious terrorism, there should be no other words to describe it. Just as many demand we label terrorism carried out in the name of Islam as Islamic terrorism, we must do the same to Christianity and realize the Christian religion is just as dangerous and prone to incite violence as its younger brother, Islam.”

How do we respond to irresponsible and irrational rhetoric like this?

The respected Newsweek journalist Kurt Eichenwald even tweeted, “The time has come to hold @daviddaleiden accountable for violence spawned by his lying ‘baby body parts’ video. Indict him 4 manslaughter.”

Like many other leaders, as soon as I heard the news about the horrific shooting, I tweeted out, “In light of today’s news about a shooter at a Planned Parenthood, we state again that this is NOT the way of Jesus or the way of pro-life.”

Then, as I began to see the mounting charges of “Christian terrorism” or “Christian extremism,” I tweeted, “In light of some crazy rhetoric here re: pro-lifers wanting to kill abortion doctors, if that was the case, 1,000’s would be killed by now.”

The fact is that the pro-life movement is an overwhelmingly peaceful movement, despite our profound and deep objection to abortion on demand and despite the deplorable practices of Planned Parenthood. As blogger Matt Walsh noted, “Interesting fact: Planned Parenthood kills 100 times more people in a day than alleged ‘anti abortion extremists’ have killed in 40 years.”

As for those “anti-abortion extremists,” their actions have been condemned by all major pro-life groups as well as by all major Christian leaders involved in the pro-life movement, since, by murdering another human being, they violate the very spirit of being “pro-life.”

More importantly, there is not a single word in the teaching of Jesus or the New Testament that supports murdering an abortion doctor (or worker), nor is there anything in ancient Christian tradition or example that would support this.

That’s why it was no surprise to learn that the alleged shooter in last week’s tragic attack was completely unknown to the pro-life movement and that, according to one report, after a divorce in 2000, “he appears to have posted apocalyptic rants online and sought sadomasochistic sex and pot-smoking companions.” This is hardly Christian!

That’s why Christian leaders in Belgium are scratching their heads upon hearing the report that, “A menacing letter from the group called ‘Christian state’ has been sent to the major Belgian mosque Attadamoune. It threatens all Muslims will be killed, and their businesses destroyed.”

They too have no idea who this alleged “Christian” group could be – if the letter is even genuinely from such a group – since there is no connection between Christian teaching, in any recognized denomination or tradition, and threats like this.

And in stark contrast with radical Islamic groups, pro-life leaders in the Church and government have called for the defunding of our ideological opponents at Planned Parenthood whereas radical Islamists call for the beheading of their ideological opponents.

So, I have a challenge for everyone who wants to brand the tragic Planned Parenthood shooting an act of Christian terrorism: Find one verse in the New Testament, in context, or one example from the early Church, or one statement from a recognized pro-life organization that supports these murderous acts.

Radical Muslims can find plenty of support for their violent actions in the Quran, the life of Muhammad, early Islamic history, later Islamic history, and from the lips and pens of respected contemporary leaders, which is why I refer to it as radical Islam.

Radical Christianity, in stark contrast, stands for the giving of life and the preservation of life, not the taking of life. And while the term “Islamic terrorism” is hardly an oxymoron, the term “Christian terrorism” is absolutely oxymoronic and fundamentally self-contradictory. (For more from the author of “The Planned Parenthood Shooting and Anti-Christian Hysteria” please click HERE)

Hear this recent interview with the author:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The 3 Biggest Mistakes America Ever Made

/4 Comments/in , /by

1) Slavery. At the time of the American founding, slavery was common practice. Blacks were sold into slavery by other black tribes. Africans and Muslims sold slaves to European and American slave traders.

But slavery was an assault on the very idea of America. A country based on individual rights could hardly reconcile that with the idea of slavery. Capitalism is the only system incompatible with slavery. Our Founding Fathers knew this, and they fought long and hard with the slave states, but those states were having none of it. During the Constitutional Convention and all of the debates concerning the Constitution, the best men wanted to abolish slavery right away, and, clearly, they should have. The South, however, would not join the Union without slaves. Without the South, the fledging country would not win a war against the British. So they compromised . . .

2) Jimmy Carter. Before Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter was easily the most disastrous president this country ever had. Many of the troubles we have today in the Middle East, and the rise of the global jihad, can be attributed to his policies . . .

3) Barack Obama. Nothing has ever happened to the United States that is worse than the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. A committed Marxist collectivist, he has stood throughout his presidency against that very principle of individual rights that made America great. In abandoning our allies and aligning with the Muslim Brotherhood and other sinister groups, he has aligned with the most evil forces of the 21st century and overturned the order of the world. In abandoning and even actively turning against our allies (most notably Israel), he has made the United States of America, for so long the beacon of freedom in the world, into an untrustworthy ally, a nation that cannot be taken at its word. (Read more from “The 3 Biggest Mistakes America Ever Made” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Would Loser-John Kasich Use Campaign Funds to Attack Trump, Compare Him to Hitler?

/4 Comments/in , /by

By Cathy Burke. A National Review commentator is blasting an attack ad from GOP presidential contender Gov. John Kasich that links front-running rival Donald Trump to Nazi Germany.

The 60-second spot, titled “Trump’s Dangerous Rhetoric,” features retired Air Force Col. Tom Moe, a prisoner of war in Vietnam, paraphrasing Protestant pastor Martin Niemöller, who spoke out against the Nazi regime and spent years in Nazi concentration camps, as images of Trump’s controversial remarks flash on screen.

Conservative blogger Jim Geraghty writes in his National Review newsletter “Morning Jolt” that there are more indications “the country is sliding into a fascistic direction” elsewhere.

“We can argue about whether Trump and his style are good for American politics, but it’s not like he’s appearing … out of nothing,” Geraghty writes. “If you fear the country is sliding into a fascistic direction, cast your gaze wider.”

“If you really fear the leader of an angry mob roughing up reporters, suppressing all dissent, and making far-reaching, unrealistic demands that their ideology rule everywhere… don’t look to a Trump rally,” Geraghty warns. “Look to a college campus.” (Read more from “Why Would Loser-John Kasich Use Campaign Funds to Attack Trump, Compare Him to Hitler?” HERE)

____________________________________

John Kasich Web Video: Donald Trump Is Pretty Much a Nazi, Right?

By Jim Geraghty. We still don’t know whether Donald Trump really wants Muslims to register with the government. He’s never directly proposed it. He’s given a half-distracted, loosely-worded affirmative answer to a reporter when it was first brought up by the reporter. Every time he’s asked since, he gives an answer about Syrian refugees. Chances are this is a deliberate strategy. When the media writes denunciatory headlines about his comments, Trump wins over the support of the Americans who think a national registry of Muslims would be a good idea. But he also has plausible deniability, as he’s never actually proposed it or explicitly said he supported it.

Mr. Moe himself engages in frustrating verbal slipperiness, claiming Trump says he’s “going to round up all the Hispanic immigrants” when he’s done nothing of the sort. He’s proposed rounding up illegal immigrants of every race, creed and color. We deport illegal immigrants every year and deported roughly 400,000 in 2012 – a policy that is Constitutional, legal, and morally justifiable. Trump is proposing an expansion of existing law – nothing Nazi-ish about that.

Moe charges, “Donald Trump says it’s okay to rough up black protesters.” Here’s Trump’s comment: “Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing,” Trump said on the Fox News Channel on Sunday morning. “I have a lot of fans, and they were not happy about it. And this was a very obnoxious guy who was a troublemaker who was looking to make trouble”. . .

We can argue about whether Trump and his style is good for American politics, but it’s not like he’s appearing ex nihilio, out of nothing. If you fear the country is sliding into a fascistic direction, cast your gaze wider. We’ve seen our government jail filmmakers after blaming terrorist attacks on him; one party push for a Constitutional limit on political speech around elections; an NSA metadata collection program that ignores the Fourth Amendment; political targeting from the IRS; promotion of the elimination of due process on college campuses, and now, the promotion of eliminating the Constitutional rights of Americans on “terror watch lists” — lists that have no judicial review, no appeal, little sense of how an American ends up on it and even less idea of how to get off it if you’re wrongfully accused. . . (Read more from “John Kasich Web Video: Donald Trump Is Pretty Much a Nazi, Right?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why George Washington Thought the Practice of Gratitude Was Essential for the American Character

/0 Comments/in , /by

Our two greatest presidents, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, respectively thought Thanksgiving sufficiently important to initiate its national celebration and to later revive this tradition.

Our accepted convention is that Thanksgiving is about family togetherness and feasting. Surely this is part of it—but perhaps a more refined notion of what this nearly ancient holiday should mean for us today is helpful.

National days of reflection are required to unify the American public in common sentiment. Washington had this in mind in issuing his rightly famous Thanksgiving Day proclamation of 1789.

First begun as a harvest holiday, Thanksgiving predates the founding of our republic. But in this first proclamation of the first year of his presidency, Washington gave a political direction to the holiday. As he said elsewhere, he wanted, through his example, “to establish a national character of our own.”

In doing his part to establish our national character, Washington was aware that we are a people capable of courage and assertion, able to win independence. He was likewise aware of our ability to choose, through representatives, a new constitutional order.

But this holiday is of a different character, as it calls us to develop a capacity for gratitude. The American public ought to be grateful not merely, however, for the immediate circumstance of their lives, but also for the greater blessings of liberty bestowed upon their nation. Our gratitude is directed toward a nonsectarian god—like the god of the Declaration of Independence—which all citizens can worship.

Importantly, gratitude also means acknowledgement of our frailty and the imperfection of our understanding; gratitude implores us to deepen our self-knowledge. Thanksgiving is, therefore, a holiday against self-satisfaction and pride.

At the end of the Proclamation, Washington implores Americans toward modesty regarding our own powers, reminding citizens that we live in an order that may be mysterious insofar as God possesses superior knowledge of what is “best.”

But are all peoples capable of gratitude? In the present time it has become fashionable to espouse if not open atheism, then at least antagonism toward religion. These opinions come forth in various, sometimes obfuscated, forms.

Part of the left’s recent fanaticism originates from the fact that progressivism’s quasi-religion lacks any understanding of gratitude and humility. Progressivism precludes belief in these since progress as an alleged cosmic force is neither merciful nor beneficent, but is merely abstract and all-powerful. As such, it does not encourage its believers toward either humility or gratitude.

Neither does belief in the abstract and inhuman forces of progress require humility on account of human frailty and ignorance. Rather, progress, claiming perfect knowledge of the laws of the universe, leads to fanaticism.

Is the individual, modeled on these assumptions, of the kind required for self-government? Rather, does not self-government require generosity between citizens, which can be the product only of a common recognition of an America inhabited by one people, united in a common cause, with common beliefs, grateful for what has come before us?

What happens to a people when they lose the ability for gratitude? Insolence and impudence rule, while the various factions devour each other, competing for the national stage. Alternatively, one might inquire whether a people is up to the task of ruling itself once gratitude is lost, since then it loses its ideals and the justification for its self-government.

Our nation has produced hitherto-thought impossible prosperity on the broadest scale. “The civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed” has endured as an ideal for many generations. Indeed, many remarkable individuals have fought to secure these blessings for our benefit.

On Thanksgiving this year, perhaps raising our purview above the pleasures of family togetherness, we might think about our nation, the good fortune we have to be its citizens, and the task ahead in preserving it. (For more from the author of “Why George Washington Thought the Practice of Gratitude Was Essential for the American Character” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Great Thanksgiving Hoax

/10 Comments/in , /by

Each year at this time, schoolchildren all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving’s real meaning.

The official story has the Pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America, and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620–21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hard-working or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his History of Plymouth Plantation, the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years because they refused to work in the field. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, “all had their hungry bellies filled,” but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first “Thanksgiving” was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Thereafter, he wrote, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened? After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take only what he needed.

This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that were most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of the famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609–10, called “The Starving Time,” the population fell from five-hundred to sixty. Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614 Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was “plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure.” He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, “we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now.”

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863 Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus, the real meaning of Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them. (For more from the author of “The Great Thanksgiving Hoax” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.