Thanksgiving TRUTH About ‘Native Americans’

Happens every Thanksgiving, doesn’t? Some bleeding heart liberal you’re “related to” gets on their moral high Crazy Horse and lectures about how horribly rotten the white man was to the Native Americans. Which is why this year we’re throwing in the tomahawk. Time to scalp the facts about the Indians. Feathers not dots.

It’s Thanksgiving! You know what that means. As you try and enjoy your downtime with your family, you’ll undoubtedly find a social justice warrior around your Thanksgiving table trying to force-feed you white guilt. Afterall, your ancestors commited genocide against the Indians. Sorry native Americans. Indigenous? Let’s just go with redskins.

Only one problem, most of it pure, unadulterated buffalo-feces.

Alright to preface this, yes, some of the settlers committed some heinous crimes that were inexcusable, and I’ve benefited from the privelege thereof, yada yada yada… but sooooome of the propoganda out there needs to be called out. Civilizations clash, that’s happened since the beginning of time. War sucks, but that doesn’t give teachers, leftists and social justice warriors the right to LIE about non-existent peaceful Native Americans who rode horses, never experienced war, painted with colors of the wind and were taken out by smallbox blankets. So before you dumbasses hang that dreamcatcher from your rearview mirror, hold your mouth because this tin can I’m about to kick just might hit you in the teeth. Let’s debunk some common PC thanksgiving myths.

MYTH: THE NATIVE AMERICANS WERE A PEACEFUL CULTURE TO WHOM THE CONCEPT OF WAR WAS FOREIGN

FACT: MANY WERE BRUTAL, CONQUERING ***HOLES

Native Americans warred with each other since, forever. Sometimes it was over hunting or farming grounds, sometimes revenge, sometimes to steal, sometimes to kill. I don’t say this to demonize them, they were no different than any other regressive, Neolithic cultures on other continents.

But the truth is that the only way settlers were able to conquer this land was through the help of Native Americans who teamed up with them to settle the score with the other, more assholish tribes. You think Cortes was able to conquer with only 500 Conquisadors. Course not, it took 50,000 ANGRY allied Native Americans who’d had it up to here with being enslaved and forced to carry gold for the other, Native Aztecs.

Some of of the Indian tribes were the most brutal in existence.

They practiced enslavement, rape, cannibalism, would sometimes target women and children, tribes like the Commanchees would butcher babies and roast people alive… and by the way, where do you think we LEARNED scalping?

MYTH: NATIVE AMERICANS WERE AN ADVANCED SOCIETY

TRUTH: NOT EVEN CLOSE

Smell that? It’s your sacred cow being torched. After I scalped her, of course. Unlike Rome, Greece, China, or pretty much any great empire which had already existed at that time, the Native Americans didn’t have advanced plumbing, transportation, mathematics or really… anything that led to the iphone on which you’re currently watching this. That whole beautiful “horseback Indian” culture you read about? It’s a lie because they hadn’t even domesticated horses. Not only that, but they didn’t even use the WHEEL. No really. 1400 AD… no wheel.

Even more reason that, when you’re that far behind, the clash of civilizations is going to be THAT much more drastic when the new wheel-using world catches up to you.

MYTH: THE SETTLERS DELIBERATELY INFECTED NATIVES WITH SMALLPOX BLANKETS TO WHIPE THEM OUT

TRUTH: ONLY IDIOTS COULD POSSIBLY BELIEVE THIS

Think about it. You really believe Europeans waged microbial, biological warfare… long before discovery, mass acceptance or even close to an understanding of advanced germ theory?

So it’s not true. You can look forever for historical accounts of mass smallpox blankets being pajamagrammed to the peaceful Indians, but you won’t find them. But there is SOME truth to the myth, which brings us to our final point.

MYTH: EUROPEANS COMMITTED MASS GENOCIDE. KILLING EVERY NATIVE AMERICAN FOR SPORT

TRUTH: NOT EVEN CLOSE

However, it is estimated that at high as 95% of pre-Columbian Native Americans were in fact killed off by disease, WHY? Because Europeans introduced new diseases to which the Native Americans hadn’t developed an immunity not only with THEMSELVES but now contact with animals like again HORSES which Native Americans hadn’t domesticated. Again, because they were such an archaic, unadvanced society.

Sure there were plenty of bloody, horrendous, unimaginable battles that occurred, and generally when it comes to neoloithic tribes and more advances settlers, the guys with the boom-boom sticks win. This isn’t exclusive to America or all that uncommon.

But Europeans were not hellbent on wiping out Native Americans, they were actually encouraged to bring the people into European culture and convert them to Christianity. Plus, inter-marrying was incredibly common. How else do you explain Johnny Depp, Angalina Jolie, Kid Cudi and even imaginary Elizabeth Warren claiming to be 1/16th Cherokee?

Killing people is bad. But so is milking, misleading and guilting all future generations for crimes they didn’t commit. Yep, Europeans conquered the Native Americans, created a Constitutional Republic, and advanced in mere centuries what Natives couldn’t do for thousands of years here on the plot of land that is America. So close this smartphone window, go enjoy your turkey and tell your social justice warrior cousin at the table to shut that mustached, single-origin-coffee drinking-hole. Or just… hand him a smallpox napkin.

SOURCES

Indigineous Americans didn’t invent the wheel: https://www.quora.com/Why-were-the-indigenous-peoples-of-the-Americas-not-able-to-invent-the-wheel

Native Americans were introduced to horses by Spaniards: https://www.omgfacts.com/lists/8801/Native-Americans-didn-t-originally-use-or-know-about-horses-They-were-introduced-to-them-by-the-Spaniards

Colonists learned to scalp from Indians (not sure about the source, but…): https://www.native-languages.org/iaq12.htm

Smallpox blanket hoax: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009/–did-the-us-army-distribute-smallpox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Genocide myth: https://american3rdposition.com/?p=12675

Time table of Native American wars: https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1008.html

Easy to read reference guide of conflicts from 1540 on: https://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-indianwartimeline.html

Details of Colonial Indian wars: https://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-colonialindianwars.html

Clashes with European settlers: https://www.wvculture.org/history/indland.html

Comanches butchered babies, ate enemies: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396760/How-Comanche-Indians-butchered-babies-roasted-enemies-alive.html

Capitalism over cannibalism: https://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/05/01/history-rant-cannibalism-at-jamestown-why/

Reject the lie of white “genocide” against Native Americans: https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2007/09/19/reject_the_lie_of_white_genocide_against_native_americans/page/full

Native Americans “National Day of Mourning”: https://www.uaine.org/

Obama’s Thanksgiving messages regularly fail to actually thank God: https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/11/22/for-fourth-straight-year-obama-thanksgiving-message-god/

8 little known Thanksgiving facts: https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11/22/8-little-known-facts-about-thanksgiving/

Top 5 Thanksgiving proclamations: https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/25/top-five-thanksgiving-proclamations/

(For more from the author of “Thanksgiving TRUTH About ‘Native Americans'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Republican Elites Experienced Only in Failure

Latest polls show that Donald Trump is trusted more to deal with international terrorism than the squatters who refuse to leave Republican Party leadership posts. This is shocking to their narrow thinking. Their talking points tell them that voters are supposed to flock to a President with “experience” when the world gets dangerous. They have the talking points right there in front of them on their desk. Yet the voters aren’t following the script. What gives? Didn’t the grassroots read their talking points?

Tone deaf, GOP officials keep pushing the stale old Christmas fruit cake with the texture of a brick that nobody wants. They can’t get it through their heads that voters don’t care how long their curriculum vitae is. The people care about whether they are restoring and protecting our country and looking out for us. Those who have spent their lives studying the status quo love the status quo too much to be the people’s choice.

The trouble with experts in Washington, D.C. is how little they know. To borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan, the problem is not that Republican elites are ignorant, but they ‘know’ so many things that simply are not so. They repeat vapid clichés to each other and memorize false assumptions. Such indoctrination is what they call experience.

The reality is that “experience” is mostly the self-congratulatory clique giving awards to each other (including job titles). The paper credentials that these candidates wave around are just nepotism. Given the results since the Republicans took the House of Representatives in 1994, what good is all their experience?

By contrast, Trump claims to be a proven leader with a special kind of experience overlooked in Washington: getting results. But that doesn’t sit well with those whose expertise is limited to leading faculty lounge policy seminars.

The irony is strong—the voters are shouting: “YOU’RE FIRED!” Yes, that’s the catch phrase made famous by Trump himself. The elites just can’t understand that this is all about them. The question on the table is not who would make the best President. The topic at hand is who can physically drag the insiders outside the city limits and dump them at the bus station with a ticket home.

Consider winning or losing the Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln appointed a General with great experience on paper to lead the Union army: General George McClellan. But he failed in the real-world on the battlefield … because he lacked grit and determination.

So Abe Lincoln replaced McClellan with gruff and rough-around-the-edges Ulysses S. Grant. And Grant got things done. President Lincoln, when informed that General Grant drank whiskey while leading his troops answered:

Real-world results trump paper credentials. Grant’s drinking was considered uncouth and ungentlemanly in the time. Officers were refined gentlemen. Yet Lincoln would rather have all his generals be like Grant, because Grant actually won battles, even with whisky on his breath.

The voters are flocking to a quality that is sorely lacking: there is a personality type that simply refuses to accept defeat. That often means getting back up again no matter how many times one gets knocked down. The voters realize that the policy wonkery in your head doesn’t count if you can’t use it to win.

Just as Hollywood created a romantic dream of glamour, perfection, and idealism through public relations and story-telling, the myth of Washington similarly grew up through fairy tales and carefully stage-managed public relations. The cult of Washington is a mirage cultivated by Hollywood and the news media. And in that idealized PR image, the occupants of the halls of power loom larger than life.

Of course, policy analysts, like me, do have valuable things to contribute. Just as a brave soldier in the field needs someone back home manufacturing the hand grenades, mortar shells, and bullets to win, it’s very hard to “get things done” without analysts figuring out the best plans for action. But insiders devalue experience like Trump’s because they don’t value real results.

Consider: you wake up after spending 20 years on the couch watching ESPN and ignoring the deterioration of your country around you, only to discover that a nest of raccoons has invaded your roof. So you call pest control.

But the raccoons announce that they can stay embedded in your roof … because one of the town’s exterminators was born in Canada. The raccoons get to stay because the other exterminator is brash and rough around the edges, says controversial things, and defies conventional wisdom. Another pest control professional is new, just changed careers, and used to be a doctor. So the raccoons get to stay, because the exterminators are not satisfactory.

No. the homeowners want the pests gone. They don’t care if Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, or Ted Cruz are perfect. They want the current occupants evicted. The voters don’t care if the lawyer evicting hold-over tenants is a saint or a perfect gentleman. They just want their house back. They want the current occupants evicted. They don’t care who does it.

I got kicked out of a discussion group in 2012 because I tried to explain that Republican leaders must look in the mirror, figure out how they lost the trust of the grassroots, and make serious, heart-felt changes. I warned that Republicans will stay home and not vote. The defenders of the establishment describe why it would be unfortunate for conservatives not to vote.

But it is going to happen, whether you like it or not, whether you agree or disagree. Unless the GOP leadership undergoes a deep, heartfelt, gut-check change, millions of voters will skip the election, and the GOP will keep losing. But insiders argue that should not happen, therefore it won’t. Their refusal to change will doom the GOP. (For more from the author of “Republican Elites Experienced Only in Failure” please click HERE)

Originally published in the Fairfax Free Citizen on November 23, 2015

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Appallingly Dishonest Pew Study on Immigration Trend From Mexico

If you want to know the depths of dishonesty and obfuscation the liberal elite employ in order to distort the reality on any given issue, take a look at this Pew research report on immigration from Mexico. Pew claims that migration from Mexico is down to such a point that there is net out-migration—that is to say more Mexicans in America have died or gone back home than returned.

Media outlets, from The Hill and Politico to the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, are breathlessly promoting the headline of this report as if it reflected the truth of the moment. Their broader message was: “See, the right wing nuts are going crazy about a border crisis when, in reality, there is zero net migration from Mexico.”

The one problem? Pew was using old data from 2009-2014.

There is nothing new about this. Pew has been reporting on a number of occasions that in light of the recession a number of illegal immigrants from Mexico returned home. But guess what? As we reported several months ago, according to the most up-to-date census data, based on the Current Population Survey (CPS), there has been a massive spike in net migration from Mexico since 2014, precisely after Obama and the Gang of Eight began encouraging illegal immigration in a number of ways. The fact that 80 percent of illegal immigrants are now officially shielded from deportation and most others are unlikely to ever encounter resistance has clearly contributed to the surge. Intelligence reports based on interviews of illegal aliens bear out the growing perception that our policies incentivize illegal immigration.

Yet, Pew was dishonest enough to report this data as if it reflects the current reality, even though the current trend portends a political dynamic completely the opposite of that which they are trying to implant in the media cycle.

In reality, this Pew report proves every premise of the border hawks. The fact that some illegal aliens returned home following the recession demonstrates how the false choice between amnesty and mass deportation is a straw-man argument. Mere passive economic disincentives from a recession were strong enough to entice illegal immigrants to repatriate. Imagine the effects of cutting off welfare and education benefits, jobs, and unqualified birthright citizenship? Every time disincentives were effectively rolled out, a number of illegal immigrants voluntarily returned home.

And that is what has been so tragic about Obama’s amnesty programs from 2012-2015 and Rubio’s amnesty bill in 2013. The allure of mass amnesty completely reversed the tide and has spawned one of the sharpest increases in net migration from Mexico in years. Incentives and disincentives matter in terms of immigration policy and border control.

Here are the numbers obfuscated by Pew and ignored by the media:

From 2009-2014, net migration was -140,000. Because of the recession, roughly 140,000 more Mexican nationals left the country than migrated in from Mexico.

Yet, from July 2014 through June 2015, the trend was completely reversed. There was a 740,000 net increase in Mexican migration. The population from Mexico grew 449,000 in just the first 6 months of 2015 alone!

And this doesn’t factor in the massive influx from Central American countries. There has been a 460,000 net increase in immigration from Central America since July 2014.

You can read my full report from August here.

As I noted in my report, these numbers come from the most up-to-date BLS and Census data—the same numbers that are universally respected when touting health insurance and employment rates. What these numbers suggest is that President Obama has completely reversed the trend of out-migration by encouraging so many illegal aliens to return. Even the furthest deviation in the margin of error for this census data—the most unlikely scenario—would suggest a 340,000 net increase in just 12 months.

Pew Research does some good work and has a number of reputable researchers and demographers. But for Pew to release an old study based on a trend that has been completely countermanded since the compilation of that data, knowing that the media will report it as reflecting the existing reality, is extremely dishonest. Then again, everything about the open border cartel is based on lies, obfuscation, distortions, and deception. (For more from the author of “Appallingly Dishonest Pew Study on Immigration Trend From Mexico” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Exposed: Obama’s Love for Jihadis and Hate for Christians

Obama recently lashed out against the idea of giving preference to Christian refugees, describing it as “shameful.” “That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion,” loftily added the American president.

Accordingly, the administration is still determined to accept 10,000 more Syrian refugees, almost all of whom will be Muslim, despite the fact that some are ISIS operatives, while many share the ISIS worldview (as explained below).

Yet right as Obama was grandstanding about “who we are,” statistics were released indicating that “the current [refugee] system overwhelmingly favors Muslim refugees. Of the 2,184 Syrian refugees admitted to the United States so far, only 53 are Christians while 2,098 are Muslim.”

Aside from the obvious—or to use Obama’s own word, “shameful”—pro-Muslim, anti-Christian bias evident in these statistics, there are a number of other troubling factors as well.

For starters, the overwhelming majority of “refugees” being brought into the United States are not just Muslim, but Sunnis—the one Muslim sect that the Islamic State is not persecuting and displacing. After all, ISIS—and most Islamic terrorist groups (Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, Hamas, et al)—are all Sunnis. Even Obama was arguably raised a Sunni.

In this context, how are Sunnis “refugees”? Who are they fleeing? Considering that the Obama administration defines refugees as people “persecuted by their government,” most of those coming into the U.S. either aided or at least sympathized with the jihad against Assad (even if they only revealed their true colors when the time was right).

Simply put, some 98% of all refugees belong to the same Islamic sect that ISIS does. And many of them, unsurprisingly, share the same vision—such as the “refugees” who recently murdered some 120 people in France, or the “refugees” who persecute Christian minorities in European camps and settlements. (None of this should be surprising considering that Al Azhar—the Sunni world’s most prestigious university of Islamic law, which co-hosted Obama’s 2009 “A New Beginning” speech—was recently exposed as teaching and legitimizing all the atrocities that ISIS commits.)

As for those who are being raped, slaughtered, and enslaved based on their non-Sunni religious identity—not by Assad, but by so-called “rebel” forces (AKA jihadis)—many of them are being denied refuge in America.

Thus, although Christians were approximately 10 percent of Syria’s population in 2011, only one percent has been granted refuge in America. This despite the fact that, from a strictly humanitarian point of view—and humanitarianism is the chief reason being cited in accepting refugees, Obama’s “compassion”—Christians should receive priority simply because they are the most persecuted group in the Middle East.

At the hands of the Islamic State, which supposedly precipitated the migrant crisis, Christians have been repeatedly forced to renounce Christ or die; they have been enslaved and raped; and they have had more than 400 of their churches desecrated and destroyed.[i]

ISIS has committed no such atrocities against fellow Sunnis, they who are being accepted into the U.S. in droves. Nor does Assad enslave, behead, or crucify people based on their religious identity (despite Jeb Bush’s recent, and absurd, assertions).

[Listen to Restoring Liberty’s recent interview with the author:]

Obama should further prioritize Christian refugees simply because his own policies in the Middle East have directly exacerbated their plight. Christians and other religions minorities did not flee from Bashar Assad’s Syria, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, or Muamar Gaddafi’s Libya. Their systematic persecution began only after the U.S. interfered in those nations in the name of “democracy” but succeeding in only uncorking the jihadi terrorists that the dictators had long kept suppressed.

Incidentally, prioritizing Christian refugees would not merely be an altruistic gesture or the U.S. government’s way of righting its wrongs: rather it brings many benefits to America’s security. (Unlike Muslims or even Yazidis, Christians are easily assimilated into Western nations due to the shared Christian heritage, and they bring trustworthy language and cultural skills that are beneficial to the “war on terror.”)

Finally, no one should be shocked by these recent revelations of the Obama administration’s pro-Muslim and anti-Christian policies. They fit a clear and established pattern of religious bias within his administration. For example:

•When inviting scores of Muslim representatives, the State Department is in the habit of denying visas to solitary Christian representatives.
•When a few persecuted Iraqi Christians crossed the border into the U.S., they were thrown in prison for several months and then sent back to the lion’s den to be enslaved, raped, or murdered.
•When the Nigerian government waged a strong offensive against Boko Haram, killing some of its terrorists, Secretary of State John Kerry fumed and called for the “human rights” of the jihadis (who regularly slaughter and rape Christians and burn their churches). More recently, Kerry “urged Tajikistan not to go overboard in its crackdown on Islam.”
•When persecuted Coptic Christians planned on joining Egypt’s anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution of 2013, the U.S. said no.
•When persecuted Iraqi and Syrian Christians asked for arms to join the opposition fighting ISIS, D.C. refused.
•When the UN Security Council held a meeting to discuss the genocide against Christians and other minorities, although “many high level delegations from UN member states addressed the Security Council meeting, some at the Foreign Minister level, the United States failed to send … a high ranking member of the State Department.”

Most recently, as the White House works on releasing a statement accusing ISIS of committing genocide against religious minorities such as Yazidis — who are named and recognized in the statement — Obama officials are arguing that Christians “do not appear to meet the high bar set out in the genocide treaty” and thus likely not be mentioned.

In short, and to use the president’s own words, it is the Obama administration’s own foreign and domestic policies that are “shameful,” that are “not American,” and that do not represent “who we are.”

Yet the question remains: Will Americans take notice and do anything about their leader’s policies—which welcome Islamic jihadis while ignoring their victims—or will their indifference continue until they too become victims of the jihad, in a repeat of Paris or worse? (This story originally appeared at “Exposed: Obama’s Love for Jihadis and Hate for Christians” HERE; reposted in full with permission of the author)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The True Cost of Europe’s Muslim Enrichment

The word “refugee” is a legal term, one defined by several international treaties. These documents brought the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) into existence, and sustain the relevance of the United Nations agency responsible for refugees to this day.

The contents of these treaties, however, sit oddly with how the UNHCR has comprehensively sought to hoodwink the European public about the predominant status of the demographic influx into their continent this year.

None of these documents — the 1951 Refugee Convention; the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, or the EU’s own Dublin Regulations — grants the right of refugee status to those traversing several safe countries, and illegally crossing multiple borders, to shop for the best welfare state.

Even a legitimate refugee from Syria now living, for example, in Turkey or Lebanon, loses his refugee status by paying a people-smuggler to travel to Europe. According to international law, that refugee then becomes an “asylum seeker.” Only when his asylum claim has been investigated and judged to be valid by a requisite domestic agency, is he once again a “refugee.”

So far, the world’s media has dutifully followed the false narrative established by the UNHCR. Those concerned by an unchecked and unlimited flood of Muslims into Europe — concerns grimly validated by Friday’s jihadist atrocities in Paris — have mostly been accused of heartlessness towards alleged refugees. (Read more from “The True Cost of Europe’s Muslim Enrichment” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The World’s Determination to Defeat ISIS Is a Myth

There can never have been a policy that more governments are committed to achieving without actually trying to achieve it than the world’s so-called determination to “defeat Isil”.

Everyone is now at it – fighting Isil, that is: the Syrian and Iraqi governments, obviously, parts of whose territory Isil controls; within those failed states, a smorgasbord of local and foreign Shia militias, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, two major Kurdish fighting forces and in Syria non-Isil anti-Assad rebels, including al-Qaeda.

Then there’s the Western allies – the air forces of the United States, Britain, France, Australia, who are bombing Isil in one country or both, with help from other European armed forces in various ways. Russia, of course, has joined in, proudly suggesting that in some way it is the only nation really serious about “defeating terrorism”. Finally, there are other Middle Eastern states with a vested interest in preventing Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s caliphate getting out of control – Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are all active or notional parts of the coalition.

Isil are either miraculous fighters or – and this is the truth – the attempt to defeat them is a myth.

It is not of course a myth that all these actors are fighting Isil: the bombs the RAF is dropping are real enough, as are the massacres of Iraqi, Syrian and other troops whose battles have ended in surrender. (Read more from “The World’s Determination to Defeat ISIS Is a Myth” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Paris Attacks and Planned Parenthood: Flipsides of the Culture of Death

This past week we saw a hideous contrast played out in real events, one whose irony was so twisted that it really seemed like fiction. This couldn’t be “what’s happening on the news.” It had to be the crescendo of some futuristic novel by a wannabe Ayn Rand or Frank Peretti.

Even as students in America whined for “safe spaces” devoid of pointy-edged free speech, several thousand French concert-goers discovered that the music venue they had chosen was not a safe space — not safe from terrorist butchers who wanted to slaughter Westerners in a venue owned by Jews. Thanks to the influx of almost a million Muslim colonists (sorry, “refugees”), no corner of Europe will soon be safe for Europeans, Jewish or Christian — because a certain percentage of Muslims will always take their religion seriously, and read its sacred texts literally, which will turn them into terrorists. Those who insist that ISIS “betrays” or “perverts” Islam can only cling to that comforting illusion by refusing to read its texts themselves.

This same weekend, we learn that the U.S. Supreme Court will review Texas’ laws regulating abortion clinics, laws made by citizens trying to make the womb at least a little bit safer for Texas babies.

And Al Gore is in Paris, trying to make the climate “safe” for the future by crippling the economy.

It’s all too much. Were we creative writing teachers and some student turned in such drek, we would slide it back to him covered in red ink, with the comments: “Tendentious, preachy, heavy-handed. Are you trying to write the next Atlas Shrugged?” No, irony this hamfisted could never cut it in fiction. Instead, we just have to live it.

Now the craving for “safety” is not contemptible. First of all, we want physical safety, for ourselves and our families. To attain this, it would be helpful if our communities were not honeycombed — as Europe has been through the callousness of its godless, soulless elites — with members of a religion which teaches that all non-members are rebels against God who deserve the death penalty. That’s a good first step, anyway.

More than a million Christians have been driven from their homes in Iraq and Syria, deprived of this basic safety, by Muslims who take their religion seriously. But most European nations will not grant these genuine refugees asylum in preference to waves of Muslim economic migrants, who passed through perfectly safe Muslim countries on their way to sign up for Danish or Belgian welfare benefits, and throng those countries’ radical mosques.

As National Review reports, the Obama administration is preparing to recognize the victims of ISIS’s genocide — explicitly excluding the hundreds of thousands of Christians threatened with death. While Europe’s bureaucracy processes the tens of thousands of orthodox, Quran-reading, sharia-supporting Muslims who flood across its borders, Christian victims shiver in storage containers and tents, wondering when the next ISIS advance will turn them into martyrs. And the world goes on, wringing its hands about whether European culture is sufficiently “inclusive” of the religion that set the persecution in motion.

Unborn children, in what should be the safest space on earth, are instead in the cross-hairs. A million will die this year in America, and as we have learned from the Planned Parenthood videos, they will be treated with the same contempt that ISIS shows towards its victims: cut up and thrown away, unless they are sold for profit, as ISIS sells the women it captures and enslaves.

The very leftists who want to help coddled 20-year-olds feel “safe” callously shrug off the physical safety of the world’s most vulnerable people: the preborn children of America and the Christians of the Middle East. Indeed, Progressives try to make victims out of the victors. We are supposed to feel sorry for Cecile Richards, because she had to go answer questions in front of Congress about the half-billion dollars she takes every year to wipe out American babies.

We are told we should worry not about Islamism but “Islamophobia,” a term which Andrew Cummins characterized with perfect accuracy: “A word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.” The persecuted on campus, we’re told, are not Christians and conservatives whose speech is being silenced; the victims are the mass of angry leftists, whose widdle feewings are hurt when someone dares to disagree with them.

There is a covert, deep-seated alliance between both factions of the Culture of Death — those who would deal it to the unborn, in service of pleasure and convenience, and those who dish it out in the name of a totalitarian movement disguised as a religion. Neither group sees human life as intrinsically sacred, and neither feels bound by an inbuilt structure of reason and moral law that pervade reality, top to bottom. Both, in the end, believe in using violent force in the service of blind willfulness — the willfulness of the sexually active Westerner, or the will of Allah, as interpreted by the politically weaponized Muslim. There can be no moral limits to the exercise of that will, since will alone is supreme — the Will to Power.

A Nation is a Safe Space for a People

We should demand that our public authorities provide physical safety, which is supposed to be their main job. And we should ask for more. A nation is meant to be a “safe space” where a culture based on common values agrees on the most basic premises of life and death, good and evil. We should be “safe,” most of the time, from having to fight and re-fight the most fundamental battles, so we can get on with the business of living our principles in practice. It is not normal to live in a culture and country where you must constantly respond to radical questions like these:

Why should you be free to practice your false religion?

Why have you not submitted to Allah?

Why do you allow all these Jews to live in your midst?

Who are you to say what I do with the human being living in my uterus?

We have fostered monsters in our midst, the heirs of Margaret Sanger, eugenicist, elitist and libertine. And now we’re admitting millions who hold to a monstrous belief, which if put into practice would make non-Muslims slaves. These groups pretend to oppose each other, but in fact they are much alike, which explains why they work hand in glove against their common enemy: The civilization that was born on Easter morning, in the light of the risen Christ.

In that civilization, we see innocent life as sacred, and will die, even kill, to protect it. We see each person, believer or unbeliever, as the numinous image of God. When we’ve failed to live up to that vision it was despite our religion, not because of it, and the resources in our own scriptures led us to stop persecuting, stop enslaving, stop colonizing. By contrast, when modern secular hedonists become more self-consistent, they find new groups to dehumanize and kill: first the pre-born, then the elderly, then the handicapped and the sick — and some are even adding newborn children to the list. When Muslims get religion, far too many turn into Islamists — and get busy advancing a program of global theocracy.

Will we Christians wake up in time? It won’t be fun or make us friends. It will demand that we do things that liberals have taught us to see as “un-Christian.” We will have to expose the ugliness of our enemies’ ideas, and their bloodthirsty implications. And yes, we will have to name some as our “enemies.” Such an ugly word. It’s the kind of blunt talk we come across in … the Gospels. We must draw red lines and fight any who’d cross them.

We must choose a presidential candidate with a statesmanlike attachment to moral principle, and shun political alliances with anyone who doesn’t respect the life of the innocent. We must punish politicians who use the life issue cynically, or cave at moments of decision — such as the choice of Supreme Court appointees. We must work at every level of church, culture and politics to make the word “abortion” again what it was in 1950: an obscenity that no one would utter in polite company. Instead, they will prefer to say “the A-word.”

We must exclude those who’d come to our country while rejecting its basic freedoms. (Don’t worry — we can exercise compassion and fill up our refugee quotas with Christians fleeing Islamists for the foreseeable future.) When in doubt, we must say “No.” As the citizens of Paris learned so painfully this week, false compassion and political correctness kill.

We must militarily cripple regimes such as ISIS, and wean ourselves from alliance with that tyranny Saudi Arabia, which uses the money we send it via our gas tanks to spread sharia everywhere. We must give up hunting the unicorn that is Islamic democracy, and work with regimes in the region that try to keep Islamists out of power.

We should take advantage of the divisions among Muslims, between Sunni and Shiite, to divide and deter the next wave of jihadists. We should support those movements in Europe that are trying to keep that continent safe, and reject that parody of Christian kindness which calls for accepting a mass influx of proto-Islamist Muslims. It is not Christian, or even rational, to endanger our children and grandchildren for the sake of a warm, fuzzy feeling — the sensation the brain experiences as it slowly freezes to death. (For more from the author of “The Paris Attacks and Planned Parenthood: Flipsides of the Culture of Death” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Paris Jihad: It’s Immigration, Stupid

Republicans in Congress know what they have to do. If they fail to convene this week and immediately work towards ending the Islamic refugee program, it’s safe to say they should all resign from office.

At its core, the predominant job of the federal government is to protect the citizenry from invasion. That is the essence of the social compact and why we agreed to form a constitutional federal union in the first place. While our vast oceans have protected us from conventional invasions, the corrosive and self-immolating values of political correctness have allowed endless reams of radical Islamic immigrants to penetrate those defenses. If Congress fails to act to immediately stop Obama’s plan to bring in tens of thousands of additional Islamic refugees from Syria and Somalia, especially after everything that has occurred in Europe, it is not outlandish to ask what is the purpose of even having a federal government.

There are two important themes we’ve been highlighting here at Conservative Review—themes that were punctuated by the Paris attacks. First, the importation of Middle Eastern refugees is sheer insanity. Second, there is an existential threat from a sizable share of the existing Muslim population in western countries. It has now been confirmed that one of the attackers was a “Syrian refugee” who came to France last month via Greece, while at least one attacker was a native French national. Several other French nationals were arrested in Belgium in connection to the attack.

How many more people have to die in order for our political class to get serious about real immigration reform?

Republicans like Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are already trying to distract from the central point and are making this about foreign policy instead of immigration. But before we discuss our involvement in the Civil War in Syria, how can these open border Republicans sit idly as the first of the Islamic refugees are brought to the shores of New Orleans?

It’s time Republicans get with the program and understand: ‘It’s immigration, stupid.’

At a minimum, conservatives must encourage GOP congressional leaders to do the following six things:

Immediately pass Rep. Brian Babin’s (R-TX) bill halting the refugee program.

Defund any appropriations for resettling Syrian or Somali refugees in this country. There is an upcoming budget deadline in December and it’s time Republicans use it. It’s bad enough they funded Planned Parenthood, which is a threat to the unborn; can they at least protect the living from Jihad?

Pass legislation vesting county governments with the veto power over refugee resettlement in their jurisdictions.

End student visas from countries that represent a security risk.

Deal with the existing homeland threat by passing Ted Cruz’s Expatriate Terrorist Act, which would revoke the citizenship of those who fight for foreign terrorist organizations, such as ISIS. We must also enforce and strengthen existing law under section 237 (a)(4) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which directs the executive branch to deport non-citizens who encourage support for terrorism. Also, pass Cruz’s bill designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

Make the broader immigration issue the #1 priority for the upcoming legislative agenda. GOP presidential candidates must also make this the defining issue of their campaigns.

As I noted when Paul Ryan was elected Speaker, merely abstaining from making the problem worse is not enough. The status quo means that Obama succeeds in transforming America and endangering the citizenry with a number of refugees who subscribe to Sharia’s creed of Islamic supremacism. We need House leadership to actively stop Obama’s immigration agenda.

It’s also not enough to merely suggest that we must better screen or vet these refugees for ties to ISIS. The Islamic State is not the source of the problem; it is a symptom of the broader problem of Islamic supremacism. Most of the recent homegrown terror attacks were not perpetrated by those with direct ties to ISIS or any official terror group, but by those who believe in Islamic supremacism.

Under existing law, in order to qualify for refugee status in the United States an applicant must demonstrate a “credible fear” of persecution in their home country. Isn’t it time our politicians heed the cries of “credible fear” from Americans under threat of terrorism in our own country? (For more from the author of “Paris Jihad: It’s Immigration, Stupid” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

It’s Time for Obama to Make a Choice: Lead Us or Resign

In any time and place, war is fiendishly simple. It is the ultimate zero-sum contest — you win or you lose.

That eternal truth is so obvious that it should not need to be said. Yet even after the horrific slaughter in Paris, there remains a distressing doubt about whether America’s commander in chief gets it.

President Obama has spent the last seven years trying to avoid the world as it is. He has put his intellect and rhetorical skills into the dishonorable service of assigning blame and fudging failure. If nuances were bombs, Islamic State would have been destroyed years ago.

He refuses to say “Islamic terrorism,” as if that would offend the peaceful Muslims who make up the vast bulk of victims. He rejects the word “war,” even as jihadists carry out bloodthirsty attacks against Americans and innocent peoples around the world.

He shuns the mantle of global leadership that comes with the Oval Office, with an aide advancing the preposterous concept that Obama is “leading from behind.” He snubs important partners like Egypt, showers concessions on the apocalyptic mullahs of Iran, and called the Islamic State the “jayvee team” even as it was beginning to create a caliphate. (Read more from “It’s Time for Obama to Make a Choice: Lead Us or Resign” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Cruz Fought Amnesty, Rubio Fought Conservatives

I remember the spring of 2013 like it was yesterday. It was one of the busiest times of my career. Republicans were working overtime to codify Obama’s open borders agenda into law, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) was the ring leader of the effort. The voice of the people was not being heard and we were subjected to fallacious talking points on a daily basis.

Along with several other conservative writers, I wrote dozens of articles exposing the details and the broader implications of the 1,000-page piece of bilge that is known as the “Gang of 8” bill. Instead of working with conservatives, Rubio and his office coordinated attacks on conservatives together with liberals. Even after all of his promises were exposed as pure fabrications, he still went on to star in ads for Mark Zuckerberg touting his bill as something it was not.

Now Rubio wants our votes and suddenly he is on our side.

In order to convince voters that he has walked the Road to Damascus on the road to winning Des Moines, his campaign is promulgating the following narrative: Rubio learned his lesson from the Gang of 8 and now shares the same views on immigration as Ted Cruz, so nothing to see here – let’s move on.

There is a lot to like about Marco Rubio. But as it relates to the all-important compound issue of immigration, one would have to erase all of history to suggest he is on the same playing field as Ted Cruz. When it mattered, Cruz wasn’t just a vote for sovereignty and security, he was a voice for it. Rubio wasn’t just a vote for Obama’s prize agenda, he was a voice for it.

For those of us who fought with everything we had to defeat the Gang of 8 despite Rubio’s best effort to score the ultimate game-winning touchdown for Obama, we can’t just let this go. The only similarity Rubio and Cruz share as it relates to immigration is the same similarity that a firefighter and an arsonist share with regards to fire – they were both there at the scene of the crime. The one was a perpetrator of the problem; the other was part of the solution.

TURNING CRUZ’S FIREFIGHTING INTO ARSON

Rubio is now suggesting that Cruz also supported amnesty because at the time of the Gang of 8 debate, Cruz introduced an amendment stripping the provision providing a path to citizenship from the bill. Rubio’s camp disingenuously submits that this act means Cruz implicitly supported legalization so long as no citizenship is involved.

Perhaps Rubio is unfamiliar with an amendment strategy when fighting legislation because he has been in very few firefights for the cause of conservatism since his election to the Senate. One way of embarrassing and exposing proponents of a bad bill is by introducing amendments to tweak the bill with changes its proponents are hard-pressed to oppose. This doesn’t mean the senator would otherwise support the legislation if it contained those changes, it’s merely a strategy to derail the bill altogether.

It’s for this reason that Rubio, during one of the few battles he actively fought, introduced an amendment to the Corker-Cardin bill forcing Iran to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. It’s not that he otherwise would have been fine with the Iran deal or the Corker-Cardin process. This was merely a way to expose the other side for their extreme position.

This is what Cruz was doing when he introduced amendments to pause any amnesty until the enforcement was implemented or to take away the pathway to citizenship or his amendment to expand legal immigration. He wanted to show that the entire Gang effort had nothing to do with being compassionate, pro-immigrant, or enforcement oriented – as proponents of the bill, including Rubio, so ardently asserted – rather this was a scheme to create new Democrat voters and disenfranchise the citizenry. Indeed, Senator Sessions, who clearly opposes legalization, supported Cruz’s amendment, while Rubio’s fellow Gang members on committee opposed it.
Hence, in the irony of all ironies, Rubio is using the hard work of Cruz in defeating his bill to suggest that they really share the same view!

Rubio was promoting his bill as ‘enforcement first’ even as he was voting down amendments to make the bill do just that.

RUBIO NEGATED HIS OWN TALKING POINTS AT THE TIME

As highlighted in his Conservative Review profile, Rubio was promoting his bill as ‘enforcement first’ even as he was voting down amendments to make the bill do just that. It’s not just that Rubio changed his position to “enforcement first,” it’s that he touted that Gang of 8 bill for months as doing just that. He opposed the following amendments:

A provision to ensure that the border is secured before any amnesty is granted. (Senate.gov)

A provision requiring completion of the reinforced double-layered border fencing. He was one of only five Republicans to do so. (Senate.gov)

A provision requiring that a visa tracking system be implemented before any amnesty is granted. (Senate.gov)

A provision that would require congressional votes affirming the border has been secured before the granting of temporary legal status. (Senate.gov)

As noted in our guide to political conversions, a legitimate recent convert to a cause is usually the most zealous in championing the issue unprompted by political pressure. When Cruz was fighting Obama’s executive amnesty, the border surge, sanctuary cities, the release of criminal aliens, the Islamic refugee scheme, and homegrown terror threats via immigration – using all his platforms on committee, floor speeches, and in the media – where was Rubio? Until Breitbart called him out for not supporting a single enforcement effort, Rubio never even signed onto the effort against sanctuary cities.

Moreover, even long after the Gang of 8, Rubio continued to promote his amnesty agenda and gave tail winds to Obama instead of actually fighting him on his executive amnesty. While Cruz was fighting DACA, Rubio was saying he’d keep it and the only problem he had with it is that it wasn’t permanent amnesty. He seemed to be bothered more by Obama poisoning the well against his legislative amnesty effort than actually stopping Obama’s broader open borders agenda.

Every candidate engages in conversions while running for office to a certain extent. Even Cruz has changed his tune on H1B visas. But Cruz has a lot more credibility on the overall immigration issue because “enforcement first” has been more than a campaign talking point to serve as window dressing for amnesty; it has embodied his tenure in the Senate.

Ask yourself this question: do you believe in your heart of hearts that Rubio will fight for conservatives on sovereignty and borders the minute he wins the primary and commences his general election messaging? (For more from the author of “Cruz Fought Amnesty, Rubio Fought Conservatives” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.