The Faithless Elected: Boehner and the House Dons

/3 Comments/in , /by

More than any other member of Congress, John Boehner has been responsible for violating critical Republican campaign promises essential to his becoming Speaker. To use a Wall Street Journal characterization of the first President Bush (July 2, 1990, A8), Boehner has “emerge[d] as the leader of the people whose … policies [his party] defeated.”

Broken promises are far worse than a mere source of unhappiness on the part of those with particular policy interests. Jude Wanniski succinctly articulated the harm caused by “promis[ing] the voters sunshine before the elections [and] delivering moonshine afterward. Democracy cannot work if politicians do not keep most of their promises ….”

“People expect politicians to lie,” James Taranto recently wrote. With a boys-will-be-boys attitude, jaded “sophisticates” wink at campaign lying. However, for those in a frustrated majority, who consider Obama-Boehner Care to be the most gargantuan and harmful fraud ever perpetrated in this country, it is long overdue to stop expecting and accepting campaign lying. It is time to understand that this pernicious practice vitiates representative government, whose essence is that voters choose who represents them.

In his opinion, on behalf of the Supreme Court, rescuing Obama-Boehner Care and the multiple lies essential to its passage, Chief Justice Roberts declared: “our Nation’s elected leaders … can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. [Therefore, it] is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” But, when election results are produced by blatant lies by unscrupulous candidates who have no intention of keeping their word, Roberts’ opinion is arguably a libel against the American people. (In legitimizing lies, Roberts was dishonest himself. See here and here.)

As is true of other decisions (e.g., doctor or product selection), information is essential to “political choices.” Obviously, decisions based on faulty information are often wrong, harmful or disastrous. That is why laws, with stiff criminal penalties, have been passed requiring truthful corporate reports to investors and accurate manufacturers’ package labels.

The most important political campaign information is a candidate’s positions, at least regarding matters of most concern. When campaigning becomes an exercise in lying about, rather than trying to justify the merits of, where candidates stand, voting becomes a pointless charade. Voters get the satisfaction of having complied with preaching to do their “civic duty” while really buying a pig in a poke.

Voters are consumers, consumers of the government they choose. Congress has enacted countless laws, with criminal penalties, against false advertising (e.g., here, here, here, here) precisely to protect consumer choices. This is one reason products contain numerous warning labels, many absurd. As with many other laws, members of Congress do not apply truth-in-labeling requirements to themselves. But given recent experience, perhaps, at campaign appearances, candidates should be required to wear warning labels listing the dangers they pose. If manufacturers are required to provide labels warning about dangers, what could be more dangerous than a member of Congress? As Mark Twain famously quoted Judge Tucker (249): “No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” Add an exclamation point while Boehner is Speaker.

Numerous voters might be unaware that lies to Congress are a crime but lies by legislators to voters are not. Members of Congress seem oblivious to the irony of their own virulent campaign-lying at a time when non-members can be punished for anything including failure to provide very vaguely defined (2) “honest services.”

The Consequence of Consequences

“I won,” declared Barack Obama, adding what is now a cliché: “Elections have consequences.” Well, Boehner and his henchmen have proven that that is only partly true. There are certainly consequences when a community organizer, longtime friend of unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers and disciple of Saul Alinsky runs with a deceptively non-threatening vague message giving few clues as to what he really intends to do. But there are no significant consequences, when Republicans win complete congressional control by campaigning in unison on an unmistakably strong message to undo the consequences of the community organizer.

Well, these Republicans must be sent a clear message. Failing to deliver promised electoral consequences will have consequences. Broken campaign promises must, or should, result in election removal.

The Insignificance of Significant Issues.

It is a mistake to focus upon particular critical issues such as taxes, abortion, spending, illegal immigration, Obama-Boehner Care. On these issues, President Obama has been the driving force but John Boehner has been the sustaining force. In turn, what has empowered and sustained Boehner has been a malignant cancer afflicting the body politic: campaign lying. The worst lying is done by the worst promise-breakers: those who make promises on specific matters and then disingenuously vote to retain a Speaker determined to block carrying out those promises. Instead of trying to keep their promises on matters most important to the voters who elected them, these people devote themselves to the task of trying to convince the voters that they tried – despite having put in place a Speaker who would make “trying” futile.

While it would be delusional for conservatives to expect anything from Obama, they have every right to expect a Republican Speaker to be on their side. Instead, he works against them with fancy footwork. In 2010, Boehner protested that Pelosi violated House Rules to impose ObamaCare. But in 2014, in order to steamroll Cromnibus, the Boehner bunch had no trouble violating the rules they professed to worship.

To be precise, at a time of Democrat contempt for law as well as rules, Boehner pretended the rules were sacred in order to prevent exercise of power of the purse to defund Obama-Boehner Care; and he completely disregarded the rules in order to needlessly surrender the same power of the purse and thereby reject the 2014 election results before the new Congress took office. This is dishonesty of the most damaging and serious magnitude on the gravest issues of the day. (Incidentally, Rules Committee members who profess fealty to the rules above all else disingenuously disregard that one of their functions is to grant waivers of rules.)

To Boehner and his toadies, truth means little or nothing. But, if representative government, now on life support, is to be saved, truth must be made to mean everything. Just as cancers must be removed to save people, lying legislators must be defeated to save the Framers’ republican legacy.

There can be no success on any issue important to conservatives unless they first elect candidates who tell the truth about what they have done and will do. That cannot occur unless lying is elevated to the top or sole campaign issue. Dishonest campaigners must be defeated as often as it takes, by doing whatever it takes. It is not enough for conservatives to sit out elections and cease giving funds to dishonest Republicans. Conservatives must vote against these Republicans, first in primaries and, however painful, if necessary in the worst cases, by voting for Democrats in general elections. The gravest specific issues will not be addressed without prior removal of representatives who promise, but refuse, to take them on.

A liar is a liar is a liar! Republican liars are no better than Democrat liars. Although Chief Justice Roberts disavows responsibility to “protect the voters from the consequences of their political choices,” this is especially inapplicable to choices based on lies (unless Roberts does not think accurate information is necessary for voter choices). As Roberts well knows, “fraud” is legally defined as knowing misrepresentation of material facts that are relied upon to the detriment of anyone relying on such misrepresentation. It is simply untrue and – yes – a lie to say that a majority of voters ever chose the worst policies of the last five years – policies that John Boehner and representatives who elected him Speaker have ratified, while denying any responsibility.

William Buckley’s Wisdom

Ideally, it is tempting to “throw all the bums out.” But, obviously, that is very unlikely. At the outset, it would be best to concentrate on selected worst bums. We don’t give up trying to catch and punish criminals because many of them, likely a majority, get away with their crimes. But they must be on notice that they can’t always succeed. Similarly, whenever possible, lying to the voters must be punished too.


When conservatives fail to defeat RINOs in primaries, there is an alternative. By 1988, realizing that no new Democrat could do as much damage as senior RINO Senator Lowell Weiker, William F. Buckley, Jr., Connecticut’s conservative icon, endorsed and helped elect Democrat Joseph Lieberman.

Now, as then, the worst RINOs are indistinguishable from the worst Democrats. In 2016, these people should be punished for their duplicity. If at all possible, they should be defeated by conservative Republicans in primaries or, if not, conservative voters must swallow the bitter pill of voting for Democrat opponents of the most dangerous Republicans. These surely include Boehner, Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, and Pete Sessions. Their recent perfidy shows beyond question that they must be replaced. Because colleagues refuse to remove the current House Republican Dons from House leadership, they must be removed from the House altogether. They should be defeated in their home districts.

In murder cases, some argue that capital punishment should be reserved for the “worst of the worst.” Well, the worst of the worst Republicans must be subjected to political capital punishment. In 2016, if conservatives are really serious, they at least must vote against the worst. If the only way to remove current House leaders – who act like Democrats anyway – is to vote for their Democrat opponents, so be it. It is campaign lying that renders almost impossible any action supported by majority voters on particular issues. Lying is and must be the central issue, if the today’s children are to enjoy, as adults, freedom and self-government in the United States.

Because betrayed conservatives have counted on Republicans to provide a viable alternative, defeating Republican campaign liars is paramount. Political cancer cells must be removed. When they break their word, that should be the main, perhaps the only, issue in ensuing campaigns.

What if voting for Democrats causes Republicans to lose their majority in the Senate or the House? The short answer: so what! Just look at what the current crop of Republicans have done to maintain Obama-Pelosi dictatorial policies. They must be defeated in order to be replaced.

Lying has been central to this country’s decay. For example, multiple lies were essential to the infliction of the affliction of Obama Care. Republicans lied to gain control of the House to cure the affliction. They did not, instead electing John Boehner Speaker. Without Boehner, Obama Care would not have been saved; but, instead, it was converted into Obama-Boehner Care. In turn, Boehner would not be Speaker without lies.

First and foremost, campaign lying and liars must be stopped. This is an absolute prerequisite to everything else conservatives desire. (See “The Faithless Elected: Boehner and the House Dons”, originally posted HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

_______________________________________________________________________

Lester Jackson, Ph.D., a former college political science teacher, views mainstream media suppression of the truth as essential to harmful judicial activism. His recent articles are collected here.

Ann Coulter: GOP Double-Crossing Traitors

/12 Comments/in , /by

Now that a federal judge has held Obama’s illegal executive amnesty unconstitutional, perhaps U.S. senators will remember that they swore to uphold the Constitution, too.

Back when they needed our votes before the last election, Republicans were hairy-chested warriors, vowing to block Obama’s unconstitutional “executive amnesty” — if only voters gave them a Senate majority. The resulting Republican landslide suggested some opposition to amnesty. . .

Poll after poll showed Americans ranking illegal immigration as the No. 1 most important problem facing the nation. We haven’t changed our minds. Last week, an Associated Press-Gfk poll showed that Obama’s single most unpopular policy is his position on illegal immigration. . .

Why don’t Republicans spend all their airtime attacking the media for lying about what Obama’s amnesty does and what the Democrats are doing? It’s hard to avoid concluding that Republicans aren’t trying to make the right arguments. In fact, it kind of looks like they’re intentionally throwing the fight on amnesty.

If a Republican majority in both houses of Congress can’t stop Obama from issuing illegal immigrants Social Security cards and years of back welfare payments, there is no reason to vote Republican ever again. (Read more from Ann Coulter’s “GOP Double-Crossing Traitors” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Internet is Not Broken and Obama Does Not Need to Fix it [+video]

/4 Comments/in , /by

By Ajit Pai and Joshua Wright. If you like your wireless plan, you should be able to keep it. But new federal regulations may take away your freedom to choose the best broadband plan for you. It’s all part of the federal government’s 332-page plan to regulate the Internet like a public utility — a plan President Barack Obama asked the Federal Communications Commission to implement in November and that is coming up for a vote Feb. 26.

While the plan contains no shortage of regulations, the most problematic may be the new “Internet conduct” rule. It’s a vague rule that gives the FCC almost unfettered discretion to micromanage virtually every aspect of the Internet, including the choices that consumers have for accessing it. If a company doesn’t want to offer an expensive, unlimited data plan, it could find itself in the FCC’s cross hairs.

But restricting service plan options is inherently anti-competitive and anti-consumer. The inevitable results will be higher prices and less service for consumers along with an especially adverse impact on small providers and upstart competitors trying to differentiate themselves in a crowded market. (Read more about how the internet is not broken HERE)

________________________________________________________

Why Can’t the Public See Obama’s Proposed Internet Regulations?

By Mark Hemingway. Republican senators Mike Lee, Ben Sasse, and Rand Paul have all been high profile opponents of the Obama administrations current plan to regulate the internet — in particular, Lee has called the regulation a government “takeover” of the internet and says it amounts to a “a massive tax increase on the middle class, being passed in the dead of night without the American public really being made aware of what is going on.”

(Read more from this story HERE)

_________________________________________________________

Billionare Mark Cuban Says Net Neutrality Will ‘F*** Everything Up’

By Dawn Chmielewski. Billionaire investor and ABC “Shark Tank” star Mark Cuban unloaded on the Federal Communications Commission’s plan to fundamentally change how it oversees the open Internet.

“That will f*** everything up,” said the voluble Cuban in remarks Wednesday at the Code/Media conference at The Ritz-Carlton, Laguna Niguel, Calif.

In early February, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler proposed tough new rules for Internet lines that would prohibit wired and wireless broadband providers from collecting payment to cut to the front of the line, or blocking and throttling lawful content and services.

Cuban said this bid to significantly expand the agency’s authority to regulate broadband providers is nothing more than an attack on giant media companies like Comcast*.

“Net neutrality is just a demonization of big companies,” Cuban said. (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Betrayal Papers: Under Obama, the U.S. has been Captured by the Muslim Brotherhood

/43 Comments/in , /by

The Betrayal Papers will trace the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama administration’s foreign and domestic policies. The five-part series will present a picture of a conspiracy that is manipulating the American government to the benefit of a totalitarian, genocidal movement that seeks to establish a global Islamic State.

• The Muslim Brotherhood is an international political, financial, terrorist and movement whose goal is to establish a global Islamic State (Caliphate).

• They have and continue to exert tremendous influence of the American government’s foreign and domestic policies under President Barack Hussein Obama.

• The violence in the Middle East and across North Africa is a direct consequence of the Muslim Brotherhood’s effective control over American foreign policy in the region.

• They operate through various “civic” front groups, as well as through American institutions who take their money as operational funding (Georgetown University, Brookings Institution).

In America, we have a weak and struggling economy, growing public and private debt, and millions are un- and underemployed. While a weaponized IRS targets Tea Party groups and other voices of liberty, and military veterans are labeled as “domestic terrorists” by the Department of Homeland Security, the federal government refuses to secure the southern border. Educational policy now includes the teaching Arabic and visits to mosques for schoolchildren.

Internationally, America is in retreat. The Middle East is in ashes, and in the midst of an ongoing genocide replete with daily horrors, the likes which have not been seen for centuries. Former allies have been abandoned and are embittered. Under the present leadership in the White House and State Department, Israel is considered the aggressor and Hamas the oppressed.

In sum, the world is at its most volatile point since the outbreak of World War II.

If you think that this is a result of something other than an “incompetent,” “stupid,” or “clueless” President, words regularly used by those who sense something is wrong but, can’t quite bring themselves to own up to the ugly truth, you’re not alone.

Millions of Americans are realizing that the Obama administration is not merely “misguided.” It is actually and consciously anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and broadly anti-Western. Yet , the American public does not yet fully appreciate why and how the administration always finds itself square against everything this country is based on – religious freedom, capitalism, and justice under law.

This series of articles will explain the force and mechanics behind Obama’s anti-American global agenda: the Muslim Brotherhood.

Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon: The Root of Today’s Islamic Evil

Founded in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood (aka, the Society of Muslim Brothers, or Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon in Arabic) is an international movement (some would argue an international conspiracy) that seeks to establish a worldwide Islamic State (or Caliphate). When it was created in the late 1920s, the Brotherhood was a contemporary of the Nazi Party of Germany. Indeed, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, Amin al-Husseini, is considered by some as the man who catalyzed the Holocaust; for it was only after Husseini visited Hitler in Berlin in 1941 that the systematic extermination of Jews and other minorities began with industrial efficiency.

After the war, despite the insistence by many wartime leaders (Churchill included) that he be brought to justice, Husseini escaped to the Middle East. He lived there until his death in the 1970s, serving as a mentor to a young Yasser Arafat. Husseini and the Nazi Party are the connection points between the Holocaust and today’s Middle Eastern genocide.

The Allies conscious failure to arrest and prosecute Husseini haunts us today.

A Terror Hedge against Stalin and Soviet Russia

At the beginning of the Cold War, working with former Nazis, the American CIA began to court the Muslim Brotherhood as an ally against Soviet Russia. This calculus may have made sense when facing down Josef Stalin, a totalitarian tyrant hell-bent on world domination, but it has proved a costly strategy in the long run.


In the years and decades that followed World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood has evolved into a modern day Nazi International, not unlike the old Comintern (Communist International). It has a vast network of financial and business interests across the world; it has agents, supporters, and apologists within western governments; and it has a support network of “civic” organizations in the West.

These all serve as a cover for its darker and insatiably violent ambitions.

For despite all their intrigue and political gamesmanship, the Muslim Brotherhood is not strictly a political movement, nor a financial cabal. It’s also the mothership of virtually all Islamic terrorist groups operating in the world today, including Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, the Taliban, Boko Haram, and many more. Such groups, all children of the Muslim Brotherhood’s fanatical Islamic ideology, are today ethnically cleansing countries such as Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Nigeria of all traces of Christianity. No less than the President of Egypt, Muslim Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a devout Muslim, has said as much.

Considering how the Muslim Brotherhood and their terrorist pawns treat fellow Muslims in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iraq, butchering them by the bushel including women and children, it should come as no surprise that Egypt and Saudi Arabia have declared the them a “terrorist” organization.

It should also come as no surprise that the United Arab Emirates has designated Muslim Brotherhood front groups operating in the United States “terrorist” entities. In November, the UAE effectively declared that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Muslim-American Society (MAS) were no different than Al Qaeda. Why? It’s because they share a common origin in the Muslim Brotherhood. One could add to this list of domestic terrorist collaborators and enablers the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the Muslim Students Association (MSA).

A New HQ in America

Equally alarmingly, all-American institutions such as Georgetown University and the Brookings Institution have accepted so much money from the Muslim Brotherhood government in Qatar, that their political positions are virtually indistinguishable from the Muslim Brotherhood’s domestic front groups!

Yet, the United States government does not see these organizations and their employees as the enemy, as apologists for the worst kinds of barbarity. In fact, the highest profile people from these organizations advise the Obama administration, including the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the National Security Council. In January, the Department of State actually welcomed the Muslim Brotherhood to a meeting, and shortly thereafter Egypt exploded in jihadi violence. This is no magical coincidence.

To the detriment of our safety and well-being, the domestic Muslim Brotherhood front groups help dictate counterterrorism policies. It is their influence which leads to the farcical idea, recently expressed by Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast, that the Crusades have something to do with ISIS and the mass murder of innocents in the Middle East today.

These front groups shape our foreign policy, which since the Arab Spring and continuing to this day is on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood.

So-called “moderate Muslims” employed at these front groups have made the country of Qatar, a totalitarian sharia-based society, and an “ATM for terrorists,” the closest ally of the United States under Obama’s Presidency. With enthusiasm from Obama and Eric Holder, they have us emptyingGuantanamo Bay of the most vicious killers and sending them to Qatar, with only the vaguest of security assurances.

The remaining four articles will explore the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on American policy, both foreign and domestic (including in Common Core, Obama’s position on illegal immigration and amnesty, and the hostility of the administration toward police officers). The exposé will also detail the operatives in the government who work to advance the Muslim Brotherhood’s ambitions for a worldwide Caliphate. And it will put into context the mysterious influence that George Soros and Valerie Jarrett have over Barack Hussein Obama, his administration, and the policies that affect every American.

The Betrayal Papers is a collaborative effort by the Coalition of Concerned Citizens, which includes: Andrea Shea King, Dr. Ashraf Ramelah, Benjamin Smith, Brent Parrish, Charles Ortel, Denise Simon, Dick Manasseri, Gary Kubiak, Gates of Vienna, IQ al Rassooli, Jeff Bayard, Leslie Burt, Marcus Kohan, General Paul E. Vallely, Regina Thomson, Scott Smith, Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, Colonel Thomas Snodgrass, Trever Loudon, Wallace Bruschweiler, and William Palumbo.

(Restoring Liberty will post the remaining four articles on how the US has effectively been captured by the Muslim Brotherhood under the guidance of Barack Hussein Obama.)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fifty Shades of Wimpy Men Leave Women Longing

/0 Comments/in , /by

To recap – for the two readers who have been out of touch in the Amazon rain forest – the best-selling book Fifty Shades of Grey has – inexplicably and ridiculously – sold 100 million copies worldwide and has now opened as a movie. The film’s opening box office revenue on Friday totaled $30.2 million, with $76 million predicted for the long weekend including Valentine’s Day viewings. (It cost only $40 million to make.) That rivals Mel Gibson’s blockbuster The Passion of the Christ opening weekend at $83.85 million.

Fifty Shades of Grey is about a steamy sexual relationship centered around bondage, dominance, and what fans of the fetishes call “discipline.” That is, the leading man’s “Red Room of Pain” includes physical abuse, whipping, miniature electric cattle prods, hot wax, and other acts critics refer to as torture. The feminists seeking to tear down traditional society by blaming all men for a mythical “rape culture” are now silent while Hollywood liberals simultaneously work hard to create one.

Following a familiar Hollywood pattern of making deviancy and perversion acceptable and attractive to society and “defining deviancy down,” the double-meaning of the word “Grey” includes the leading character “Christian Grey.” Mr. Grey – whose name “Christian” is surely no coincidence – is a handsome, wealthy billionaire playboy with expensive and fascinating recreational tastes such as soaring over the landscape in a glider. In typical Hollywood propaganda, deviancy is presented with the most handsome and appealing possible face.

Does the heroine, Anastasia Steele, fall in love with Christian’s corporate helicopter rides, glider flights, fancy cars, skyscraper office with stunning views overlooking the city, lavish apartment, glittering high-society, and the strong man exuding confidence and power? Or is it really Christian Grey’s riding crop that wins her heart? Or is the intent to associate the deviant elements of the story with the positive allure of the ideal man so that the bondage, sadism, discipline and masochism (BSDM) lifestyle will bask in the positive glow of the desirable, billionaire eligible bachelor?

Remember Richard Gere, the wealthy millionaire in Pretty Woman? To make prostitution seem positive and socially acceptable, the handsome, rich, kind-hearted venture capitalist with the exciting life is every woman’s dream man. He is reluctantly persuaded to hire the prostitute played by Julia Roberts. It is a chance encounter, assuring us that this is not a man who regularly cruises for street walkers. Then the encounter is shown as a beautiful romantic experience with a fairy tale ending. Richard Gere marries the call girl after renting her out on the installment plan. The call girl is the noble heroine while the elite women at a social garden party are the small-minded, ugly villains. The business partner played by Jason Alexander is the disgusting pig who helps us all collectively despise anyone who would view prostitution in a negative light. Prostitution is the way to marry a handsome millionaire while anyone who disapproves is the problem.

Following the same propaganda pattern, Fifty Shades of Grey invents the most attractive possible man. The female author plays every possible card to present Christian Grey as a man who is irresistible. Into that context of a handsome, exciting billionaire, E.L. James adds the secret and hidden “Red Room of Pain” where the perfect man wants to sexually dominate women. To leave no gimmick unused in her desk drawer, the author has Anastasia Steele’s love eventually win Christian Grey back from his fetishes. Yet by that point, the beautification of deviancy has already been fully achieved. Grey’s growth only emphasizes what a truly good guy he is, proving that normal men whip women, too.

So why are women flocking to see the movie? Why has the book, written by a woman, sold 100 million copies mostly to women? Why would women love a book and movie that features a woman being tied up, dominated and whipped? Could it be that women may tolerate the unpleasant aspects of this relationship, which they really don’t prefer, in order to experience something that is lacking in their lives?

There is a long tradition of best-selling romance novels aimed at women called “bodice rippers.” A strong, muscular, handsome, successful man is so overcome with desire for the young innocent heroine that he rips off her clothes (a bodice being similar to an old-style blouse) as they fall onto the bed or couch. The young woman resists as long as she can and the man struggles to be a gentleman until they can forego the temptation no longer. The strong man overcome by raw desire cannot wait to remove her clothes properly without ripping. So the formula goes.

Well, what are women longing for? Are women fed up with modern men with the texture of boiled cauliflower? Do modern, feminized, metro-sexual wimps leave women hungering for something more? Would women be just as happy with a man’s man chopping firewood in a lumberjack shirt, who isn’t afraid to speak his mind even if he ticks people off, even if he doesn’t own any handcuffs?

The Oxford Dictionaries defines “perversion” — as “Distortion or corruption of the original course, meaning, or state of something: ‘the thing which most disturbed him was the perversion of language and truth’”

There is an authentic original of which BSDM is a corrupt variation. There is the proper role of a strong but kind masculine man. And then there is the perversion. In order for one thing to be “twisted,” there must have been an original that was straight and true. A man’s strength and leadership is something for a woman to trust in and lean on. The perversion caused by sin turns what God created into male chauvinists degrading women as second class.

Power to the fallen mind is mean and demeaning. Fallen men seek power to be superior over others. To God, power is kind. Power shelters and protects, and even gently corrects. The proper role of strength is not to seek one’s own interests, at least not exclusively. A strong gentleman becomes twisted into a male chauvinistic pig through the sins of selfishness and pride, a cold heart, and an inability to empathize with others and care about them as real people.

Women love to go dancing much more than do men. Yet when a man and a woman go ballroom dancing, the man takes complete and total control. Every split second, the man decides what will happen, which way they will turn, and what the next dance step will be. But no one in their right mind would imagine that ballroom dancing is a man being inconsiderate to a woman. On the contrary, having a man lead allows the two to get closer to each other and to move as one. Nearly always the man is ballroom dancing to please the woman who likes dancing more than he does.

The more an anti-God feminism attacks and tears down God’s patterns in male-female relationships, the more the fallen human heart invents twisted alternatives to try to fill in the gaping hole. Women instinctively want a strong man. And some of them can even grow hungry enough to accept a perverted version of masculinity if they cannot find the authentic original of a kind but strong gentleman as God intended.

(“Fifty Shades of Wimpy Men Leave Women Longing”, originally posted HERE, re-posted with permission)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Should Have Been Publicly Ridiculed During the White House’s Cybersecurity Summit at Stanford [+video]

/4 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: APBy Mary Theroux. President Obama held a much-publicized White House Summit on Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection at Stanford last Friday, culminating with his signing onstage a new executive order calling for “collaboration” between government and technology companies to fight cyber crime.

Tech executives from Google, Yahoo, and Facebook to their credit declined invitations to attend, while Apple CEO Tim Cook took the stage to advocate for privacy rights.

A far cry from days past when President Obama used Silicon Valley as an ATM machine to refill his campaign coffers. Regardless of how much Obama’s now being a lame duck may account for the change, we can but hope this shift in sentiment in the Valley remains permanent.

The audience attending the summit apparently saw no irony in Mr. Obama’s declaration that, “When people go online, they shouldn’t have to forfeit the basic privacy we’re assured as Americans.”

A noble sentiment, agreed, but Mr. Obama bears much of the responsibility for this forfeiture himself, having authorized the government programs under which these basic rights are violated—not once, but repeatedly, including annual re-authorizations of the NDAA, and multiple other programs that result in the wholesale capture and indefinite storage of every detail of every innocent American’s life. Every email, phone call, everyone’s location at any given time, every internet transaction, online search, etc.: you name it, Mr. Obama’s administration is purposely depriving every American of privacy rights every minute of every day—with tech and telecom companies duly “collaborating.” (Read more about the cybersecurity summit HERE)

______________________________________________________________

Apple CEO Tim Cook Defends Privacy at Cybersecurity Summit

By Jeff Gammet. Apple CEO Tim Cook spoke at last Friday’s cybersecurity summit where he made a strong push to protect user privacy instead of handing over access to our digital worlds to the government. The event was orchestrated by the White House as a way to bring together tech industry leaders, academic experts, and government leaders to find a common ground for dealing with law enforcement and national security desires for easy access to our personal data.

No other big tech company CEOs were willing to take the stage and share their thoughts, but Mr. Cook didn’t hesitate. He said, “Everyone has a right to privacy and security,” making it clear he does not support the idea of giving government agencies back doors into our personal data.

Instead of creating new security threats that governments and hackers alike could exploit, Mr. Cook called for strong privacy and security measures to protect technology users. He said,

If those of us in positions of responsibility fail to do everything in our power to protect the right of privacy, we risk something far more valuable than money—we risk our way of life. Fortunately, technology gives us the tools to avoid these risks, and it’s my sincere hope that by using them and by working together, we will.

Apple has already taken steps to keep its customer’s data safe from prying eyes by refusing to store our personal information in a way it can decipher. Text-based chats are encrypted, too, and Apple doesn’t have the software keys needed to read their contents—those are held only by the conversation participants. (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Draft ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’ Falls Short

/1 Comment/in , /by

An Authorization For Use Of Military Force (AUMF) Should Implement A Military Strategy, But The U.S. Has No Military Strategy And Lacks An Adequate Definition Of The Enemy

One of the two principal problems with Obama’s draft AUMF submission to congress is the absence of a military strategy to implement; however, the second principal and more basic problem is that in order to have an effective military strategy, the enemy must first be specifically defined. But an adequate and realistic definition of the enemy is the missing the cornerstone for both an effective military strategy and a comprehensive AUMF to deal with the Islamic jihadists.

The public complaints so far about Obama’s proposed AUMF are that it stipulates a three-year sunset limit to the conflict which angers hawks, and it also contains no geographical limitations to the conflict that perturbs doves. However, it is the definition of the enemy, which no one seems to be complaining about, that is entirely inadequate.

In the AUMF measure before congress, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and/or “associated persons or forces” are singled out as the sole enemy against which Obama seeks authority to conduct military operations. The “associated persons or forces” are defined in the Obama’s draft resolution as:

“individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”

The identification of only ISIL and associated persons or forces as the enemy is simply another of Obama’s attempts to evade acknowledging that our enemy, and civilization’s enemy, is Islam as comprehensively spelled out in the Quran (Allah’s words reported by Mohammad), Sira (Muslim approved biographies of Mohammad), Hadith (teachings, deeds and sayings of Mohammad), and Sharia (moral code and religious law of Islam).

While ISIL operates in accordance with these four Islamic scriptural documents to carry out Islamic “holy war,” or jihad, so too do “Hamas” in Gaza, “Islamic Jihad” in Gaza, “Muslim Brotherhood” in Qatar and America, “Council on American-Islamic Relations” (Muslim Brotherhood), “Muslim American Society” (Muslim Brotherhood), “Islamic Society of North America” (Muslim Brotherhood), “Boko Haram” in the African Sahel, “Al-Shabaab” in Somalia, “Al-Qaeda” in Pakistan, “Jabhat Al-Nusrah” in Syria, “Khorasan” in Syria, “Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” “Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb,” “Ansar Al-Sharia in Libya,” “Islamic State in Libya,” “Ansar Al-Sharia in Tunisia,” “Ansar Bayt Al-Maqdis” in Egypt, “Taliban” in Afghanistan, “Tehreek-i-Taliban” in Pakistan, “Lashkar-e-Taiba” in Pakistan, “Islamic State in Sinai Province,” “Islamic State in Gaza,” “Jemaah Islamiah” in Southeast Asia, “Abu Sayyaf” in Philippines, “Hezbollah” in Lebanon and Syria, “Houthis Ansarallah” in Yemen, “Badr Organization” in Iraq, “Al-Sadr Mahdi Army” in Iraq, “Al-Muqawama Al-Islamiya” Iraqi militia, “Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force” in Iraq and Syria, to name some of the better known Islamic Sunni and Shia jihadist groups around the world. Obviously there are hundreds more Islamic jihadist groups that vary in size and threat capability, but all, whether Sunni or Shia, trace their reason for being and organizational motivation to the Quran, Sira, Hadith, and Sharia.

Since ISIL is complying with the jihad mandates in the four fundamental Islamic scriptural documents, as also are the 30 other above-named jihadist groups listed above, it is undeniable that only declaring ISIL to be our enemy is woefully and misleadingly understating the scope of the threat faced by the U.S. After all, Obama asserts in his draft AUMF that ISIL “poses a grave threat to . . . the national security interests of the United States and its allies and partners.” (It should be noted that although the Sunni and Shia copies of the Sira, Hadith, and Sharia are different texts, they all serve the same function and advocate jihad.)

But the key unasked and unanswered question underlying the entire war is: Why does ISIL pose a grave threat to U.S. interests? The answer is the one Obama avoids acknowledging, and it is because ISIL is complying with the four basic Islamic scriptural documents mandating jihad. And of course, this jihad-compliance answer has an enormous consequence that Obama also desperately wants to escape accepting – that is, it only logically follows that the other above identified 30 jihadist groups are just as much of a grave threat to U.S. national security interests! And since ISIL and all the 30 above Islamic jihadist groups (and hundreds more) are motivated by the same Islamic scriptural sources, it is inexplicable why all Islamic jihadist groups are not designated as exactly what they are, a cumulative, grave global threat to U.S. national security interests!

DOES OBAMA’S INCOHERENCE IN NAMING THE ENEMY MATTER?

The short answer to the above incoherence question is: Yes! Why? Because, if the U.S. were to destroy Sunni ISIL, then the Shia forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force, Hezbollah, Bashar Al-Assad’s Alawite State Militia, Badr Organization, Al-Sadr Mahdi Army, and Al-Muqawama Al-Islamiya Iraqi militia are the winners. Furthermore, were the situation reversed and the Shia forces defeated, then the triumph would go to the Sunni ISIL and other Sunni jihadist organizations like Jabhat Al-Nusrah and Khorasan. Clearly, the American media and congressional talk of “boots on the ground” in Iraq and Syria to defeat ISIL is wrongheaded because it does not address the crux strategic question: What’s next?

While the previous 2002 AUMF was actually more open-ended than Obama’s proposed AUMF in identifying Islamic jihadist groups against which U.S. forces can conduct operations by classifying them according to their participation in “international terrorism,” the 2002 AUMF was also mistaken because the criteria should be the jihadist motivation to install the Sharia in conquered territories, rather than whether or not they use the tactic of terrorism. The reason being, it is the Sharia that contains the political instructions to destroy and replace all non-Sharia, man-formulated jurisprudence and constitutions because, once Sharia is established as the god-given reigning legal system, the secular and religious obstacles to making Islam the dominant religion will be able to be removed and eliminated. It is the Sunni Wahhabi Sect in Saudi Arabia that is exporting the message that Muslims have a jihadist obligation to promulgate the Sharia throughout the world. The Saudi Royal Family, Saudi Oil Sheiks, and Sunni Wahhabi Clerical Establishment have been building and financing mosques around the globe to carry the jihadist message using Petrodollars.

To put Islamic Sharia law in its perspective, the Sharia places into practice in daily life the Islamic injunctions contained in the Quran, Sira, and Hadith with the force of law. Therefore, once the Sharia is the controlling legal system, the three existential choices of Islam become operative: 1) Convert to Islam; or 2) Submit, acknowledge the religious supremacy of Islam, and pay an annual blood money extortion “tax” for your life; or 3) Be put to death. It must be noted the single objective of jihad is install the Sharia by violent (war and terrorism) or non-violent (politics and deception) means.

Jihad is an essential and integral part of Islam that cannot be separated or eliminated from the religion, even though not all Muslims may actively practice or even favor jihad. Consequently, using participation in international terrorism as the determinant of enemy or non-enemy status is a false, unreliable, misleading, and dangerous discriminant.

THE STRATEGIC SITUATION

As the American society enters into public and congressional debate on the merits of Obama’s draft AUMF, it is obvious that both Democrats like Obama, Kerry, Rice, and Brennan and Republicans like McConnell, Boehner, McCain, and Graham are rudderless and clueless on how to effectively deal with the scourge of Islamic jihad rampaging through the world. No one in the national leadership has yet mastered the fact that attacking individual jihadist groups like Al-Qaeda, or Taliban, or now ISIL will not stem the worldwide tide of jihad any more than temporarily. There is absolutely no hope of quelling Islamic Sunni and Shia jihadists by merely continuing the singleton-group attack strategy that has been failing for 14 years.

In addition to the Sunni and Shia separate jihads against the U.S. and allies, there is a civil war within Islam that is simultaneously occurring between the Sunnis and Shiites for the dominance of the Islamic umma world community. The U.S. has no business getting drawn into this Muslim sectarian war because, regardless who wins, the U.S. loses for the reason that the other avowed enemy is thereby strengthened.

Conclusion

As the U.S. public and congress turn their attentions to the details of formulating a new AUMF to hopefully more successfully confront the Islamic jihad being relentlessly waged against the West, and take into account at the same time the on-going sectarian war within Islam, foremost in everyone’s mind should be the realization that any alliance in this region is fraught with insecurity.

This realization does not mean that the U.S. must renounce all relations or alliances with Muslim regimes, rather it means that the U.S. national leadership must be aware of the dangers of permitting large numbers of Muslim immigrants into this country, the menace inherent in relying on the trustworthiness of the Saudi Wahhabi Royal Family, the perils of trusting in a nuclear weapons limitation agreement with the Shia Mullahs of Iran, the jeopardy involved in the counter-factual idea that the Palestinian Islamic leadership actually seeks a “two state solution” and not the complete destruction of Israel, the precariousness of the unfounded belief that propping up the inept Shia regime in Iraq is in U.S. interest and not that of the Iranian Shia Mullahs, and finally the folly of not recognizing the pure treachery of the Muslim Brotherhood. And those cautions are just for openers.

However, on the positive side, there are potential Islamic allies in the Middle East whose natural interests are opposed to the jihadists like the current governments of Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Kuwait. Of course, any or all of these allies could turn against the U.S. with little warning because in every non-jihadist Muslim lurks a radicalized jihadist in waiting. Such is the nature of Islam.

(Visit the original source, re-posted with permission HERE)
__________________________________________________________________________

Col. Thomas Snodgrass, USAF (retired) served over a year in Peshawar, Pakistan, working with Pakistani military intelligence. During his year in Vietnam he daily scheduled 130 U.S. Army and Air Force intelligence collection aircraft. In his final overseas tour he was the U.S. Air Attaché behind the Iron Curtain in Warsaw, Poland. In total, Col. Snodgrass was variously an Intelligence Officer or an International Politico-Military Affairs Officer serving duty tours in seven foreign countries, as well as teaching military history and strategy at the Air War College, US Air Force Academy, and USAF Special Operations School during a thirty-year military career.

Additionally, he was awarded an Air Force scholarship to get a history master’s degree in revolutionary insurgent warfare at the University of Texas, as well as being granted a year’s educational sabbatical to teach and to write about international relations as an Air Force Research Associate in the graduate school at the Center for Advanced International Studies, University of Miami, Florida. Following the Air Force, Col. Snodgrass was an adjunct professor of military history for ten years at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Arizona.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Proof that American Democracy is Dead, the Oligarchs Rule

/16 Comments/in , /by

Reactions to John Boehner’s re-election as Speaker have included scant attention to its implications for representative democracy.

As Lincoln noted, “unanimity is impossible; … so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism … is all that is left.” Yet Boehner’s continued Speakership demonstrates that there is now no way for a majority of voters to obtain representatives who will represent them; and no way to compel a purportedly representative government to comply with their clear wishes on matters they consider most crucial.

Angelo Codevilla’s contention has been confirmed again. America is now lorded over by an oligarchic Ruling Class. Republicans are indistinguishable from Democrats. For voting majorities, who resoundingly rejected Obama Care in 2010 and all Obama policies in 2014, there is currently no place to go.

Due largely to Boehner, firmly and clearly stated campaign promises on the most important issues have been repeatedly and defiantly broken.

Not All Roll Call Votes Are Created Equal

Less than one month after he rammed through the infamous Cromnibus bill and two days after being re-elected, Boehner held a press conference that merits a prominent place in the museum of memorable denials, such as Nixon’s “I am not a crook” and Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” The Speaker effectively declared: “I am not a spineless establishment squish.”

Objecting to opposition from the right, he laid claim to “the eighth most conservative voting record [,]” illustrating how unreliable roll call votes are in assessing a legislator’s performance.

· First, a favorite device for legislators to deceive voters is reliance on lack of public awareness of the importance of procedural votes, critical in determining actual policy but often not included by those who classify voting records as “liberal” or “conservative.” For example, the House has a Rules Committee that considers resolutions determining if, when and how controversial bills are considered. But the full House must approve a rule before a bill can be debated and voted on. Lying legislators often vote liberal on rules and conservative on bills. As will be explained, two blatant examples occurred when Boehner saved Obama Care and largely nullified the 2014 election.

· Second, raw numbers mask the vastly differing importance of issues and how strongly voters care about them. When polled, voters often express opinions, without much thought, on issues they care little about if they care at all. But other voters feel so strongly about the same issues that they will not only express opinions but cast votes based solely on them. A prime example of votes determined by one issue is ObamaCare. Countless polls have documented its unpopularity. Few would deny its transcendent importance or that the 2010 and 2014 Republican successes were based largely on promises to get rid of it. 2014 also included promises to block unconstitutional Obama amnesty for illegal aliens. More than any other member of Congress, Boehner has been responsible for breaking these promises.

2,813 recorded House votes occurred during the first four full years of Boehner’s reign (here, here, here, here). A handful, perhaps four, mattered more than all the others: the Rule that saved Obama Care, the Rule that enabled the Cromnibus 2014 election nullification, and the two votes that made Boehner Speaker.

Speaker-election votes matter more than most because the Speaker wields power over all other votes. Boehner has thwarted solemn promises that resulted in majorities that made him Speaker by blocking all serious efforts to halt Obama’s unconstitutional abuses of power, effectively approving and enabling these abuses. The American people now suffer a bizarre combination of rule over the House with an iron fist in order to kowtow to an iron-fisted president on the most critical issues.

The Rules Ruse: How Obama Care Became Obama-Boehner Care

It is now five years since Obama Care became law. Fewer than eight months after enactment, due largely to that law, the voters expressed their opposition by giving Republicans control of the House, resulting in Boehner becoming Speaker. Yet three months after the 2010 election and still less than a year had elapsed, he immediately used his new power to squelch promises to undo Obama Care, thereby taking co-ownership of that law for most of the period it has been on the books and responsibility for all the hardships and shocks it has caused and will cause to millions of Americans. Biased media will never use the truly descriptive term: Obama-Boehner Care. This policy, as well as Obama-imposed/Boehner-approved unconstitutional amnesty for law-breaking by millions of aliens, must be seen as two of the most critical oligarchical ruling class betrayals of the early 21st century.

Boehner’s autocratic complicity in these unpopular policies renders irrelevant any overall roll call voting record he may cite to fool voters. Is it surprising that substantial majorities of the voters who produced a Republican Congress did not want Boehner retained as Speaker? The latest poll came after one of the most important votes of Boehner’s cowardly House suzerainty, in which he begged President Obama to round up Democratic votes for Cromnibus in defiance of opposed Republican voters. As described by Rep. Jim Bridenstine, this lameduck

$1.1 trillion spending bill … funded the government for 10 months and blocked our newest elected Republicans from advancing conservative policy and delivering on campaign promises. [Boehner] gave away the best tool available to rein in our liberal activist President: the power of the purse[,] Congress’ Constitutional strength.… Boehner went too far when he teamed with Obama to advance this legislation. He relinquished the power of the purse….

It is critical to emphasize the immensity of this renounced power. The U.S. Constitution clearly states: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” This is a grant of absolute power, not just to Congress but to each of its houses. Although two thirds of each house of Congress can override a presidential veto, if a simple majority one house resolutely refuses to appropriate money, there is nothing that the president or the other house can do about it. Period!

Significantly, Boehner’s lameduck Cromnibus surrender required two recorded votes, illustrating the trap of relying on roll calls to assess legislative performance. Much was made of Boehner’s begging Obama to corral Democrat support because 67 Republicans voted against passage. Many of them were actually praised by gullible conservatives. However, prior to voting on the bill, there had to be a vote on the Rule allowing it to be even considered. Not one Democrat voted for that Rule and only 16 Republicans voted against it. If one more Republican had voted “No” on the Rule, the bill would never have been voted on, let alone passed. Thus, 51 Republicans had it both ways. They voted for the Rule allowing consideration and then against final passage. Doubtless, roll call voting analyses will list them as voting conservative when, in reality, they helped Boehner stab conservatives in the back.

Trey Gowdy, inexplicably touted for Speaker by such conservatives as Sean Hannity, was among the both-ways Republicans and supported Boehner’s re-election. Rep. Bridenstine was, regrettably, among Cromnibus’ both-ways Republicans. Despite its central role in determining the content of legislation, his “Communications Director” downplayed the significance of the Rules vote, which made the difference between relinquishing the power of the purse and blocking that surrender. In sum, Bridenstine voted to approve voting on what he then voted against and professed to be his reason to vote against Boehner. Like John Kerry, Bridenstine was for Cromnibus before he was against it. That does not mean his powerful quoted statement was wrong. What was wrong was his vote enabling a vote on Cromnibus in the first place.

Cromnibus is thus one classic illustration of the Rules Ruse. Another little noticed yet major use of Rules to deceive conservatives occurred February 15, 2011. The Rules Committee held a painful-to-watch hearing that prevented a House vote on Rep. Steve King’s amendment to defund Obama-Boehner Care. When professed Obama-Boehner Care opponent and actual Obama ally Rep. Foxx, revealing or feigning ignorance of basic high school civics, triumphantly asked (1:38) King what the Senate would do to his amendment, he patiently explained: “there is not a dime that can be spent by the federal government unless the House concurs” (2:01). (go to page 2 of “American Democracy is Dead” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

America’s Disintegration and its Solution [+video]

/3 Comments/in , /by

I love my country. My ancestors through my mother’s mother knelt upon first landing at Plymouth on Cape Cod on Dec. 21, 1620, and dedicated this land to Jesus Christ. These Mayflower Pilgrims specifically prayed for the evangelism of this continent and the world beyond. They claimed the continent for King Jesus.

That is a covenant that cannot be broken, if we on our end will not allow the “flag” to fall to the ground. It is not a question of bringing the United States under the kingdom of Christ. It already is. We simply have to agree with it and stand with God, the way the people of Israel from time to time remembered their covenant (after often forgetting it) and renewed it again.

And yet the United States is crumbling before our eyes, so rapidly it is hard to believe. Like the hapless sinners who opened the Ark of the Covenant in the first “Indiana Jones” movie, we see the once great hope of humanity disintegrating into dust. And incredibly fast.

Why is this happening? How? How did we get here? What does it mean, and is there anything that can be done?

You have to trust me here. Without watching the following video, you probably won’t understand. I mean truly watch it. Stop whatever else you are doing. Get away from all distractions:

(Read more about America’s disintegration HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

If You’re a Fan of ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’, Please Seek Counseling

/1 Comment/in , /by

I struggled with whether to write this. It seems like a foregone conclusion at this point that “Fifty Shades of Grey” will be a massive hit at the box office. There’s probably nothing anyone can say to change that; the hand wringing only serves to promote the film even more.

The thing exists, after all, purely to make money and engender controversy because it’s making money and then make more money off of the controversy it engendered. It has us cornered. If we complain about it, we’re doing exactly what they want us to do.

It’s not like anyone involved in producing this smoldering pile of cinematic sewage would necessarily disagree with the criticisms anyway. They know what they’ve done. It’s not as though they thought the story was remotely compelling or substantive. It wasn’t like when Francis Ford Copolla first read “The Godfather” and knew it was an epic tale destined to become one of the greatest cinematic achievements of all time.

I imagine whoever first cooked up the idea to make a “Fifty Shades” movie probably didn’t even read it. They kind of got the gist and thought, “eh, it’s garbage but it’ll probably make a billion dollars because we can vomit just about anything into the trough and Americans will come in droves to devour it.”

So before we even get to the content itself — rancid as it is — we already know that the film is cynical and worthless, and, as I’ve previously discussed, born purely out of a desire to bilk sexually frustrated suburban soccer moms out of their disposable income. It has no other purpose. It serves no other function. It is an empty vessel (well, a vessel filled with leather whips and ball gags, but empty besides that). It’s not art, and anyone who pays to see it is degrading themselves — and I’m not even talking about the bondage and the glamorized rape yet. (Read more about the review of ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.