Democrats’ ‘Resist’ Strategy Against President Trump Is Backfiring

/0 Comments/in , /by

Democrats’ “Resist” strategy against President Trump is backfiring. Polling data shows the extreme statements and policies used by Democrats are boomeranging back on them. Polls on fake news, immigration, and the Senate vote to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court show that the public strongly supports President Trump.

If the current trend continues, the blue wave will end up as a ripple and will deliver a devastating blow to the Left’s hopes of turning Congress to Democrat control.

The Left went all out to slam President Trump’s zero-tolerance policy at the U.S.-Mexico border. Democrat politicians, the left-wing media, far-left activists, and Hollywood elites went wild. They fired their full arsenal to exploit the emotion surrounding children separated from their parents after illegally crossing the border.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the separation of children from their parents was “barbaric” and added “… this is not who America is …”. Senator Kamala Harris, D-Calif., called for Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to resign; actor Alan Alda asked if it was proper for the U.S. “to use emotional torture for border control” in a tweet; and MSNBC host Rachel Maddow cried on her show discussing the issue. Just in case the public missed Maddow’s tears live, the Washington Post wrote a story about her emotional reaction to guarantee national news coverage.

However, the Left’s hope to take political leverage over child separation at the southern border failed, according to a recent Harvard/Harris poll conducted on June 24 and 25.

The poll found that 70 percent of registered voters want stricter enforcement of immigration laws, 66 percent think illegal aliens who cross the border should be sent home, and 61 percent think illegal alien parents who cross the border with children should be sent home.

While 61 percent blamed the Trump administration for separating children from their parents, 71 percent strongly backed President Trump’s decision to issue the executive order to keep children together with their parents after illegally crossing the border.

Democrat and left-wing activists’ calls to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were soundly rejected; 68 percent do not want ICE disbanded.

Upping the emotional amplitude on childhood separations resulted in the public harassment of members of the Trump administration risking further alienation of the public from the Democrat Party. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen were harassed in two separate instances in restaurants by left-wing activists.

The extremism from the Left is getting so out of hand that Democrat leaders made an effort to douse the flames before they result in voter backlash or, even worse, violence. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Pelosi criticized Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., over her comments urging public harassment of Trump administration officials.

The Democrat leaders’ effort to sway Waters failed, and she doubled down on her call for using aggressive tactics. Waters’ pushback against Democrat leaders is getting backup. About 200 black women and allies wrote a letter to Schumer and Pelosi supporting Waters.

The left-wing media’s effort to use its power and influence to harm President Trump is destroying news outlets’ credibility. According to a poll conducted by Axios/SurveyMonkey, 72 percent of adults in the U.S. think “traditional major news sources report news they know to be fake, false, or purposely misleading.” So almost three-quarters of adults believe the media is driven by politics, not the truth.

A breakdown of the results by political identification found a significant percent of Independents (79 percent) believe the media twists the facts and a majority of Democrats (53 percent) felt the same way.

Democrats’ messaging on the Supreme Court vacancy also shows that the public is growing tired of the “resist President Trump” strategy. Senator Schumer wants the Senate vote on the new Supreme Court nominee to come after the midterm elections, adding it would be the “height of hypocrisy” to hold a vote before the November elections. Schumer used the decision by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell not to vote on former President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland before the 2016 election as the basis of his criticism.

Public opinion is not on Schumer’s side. A recent NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll found that 62 percent of U.S. adults believe President Trump’s Supreme Court pick should be voted on before November.

The public is rejecting the “resist President Trump” strategy, casting serious doubt on the hope of a blue wave this fall. (For more from the author of “Democrats’ ‘Resist’ Strategy Against President Trump Is Backfiring” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Democrats’ 2018 Slogan Is a Godsend for Republicans

/0 Comments/in , /by

Democrats love frivolous slogans. The party that brought us “Bush Lied, People Died” (he didn’t) to “No War For Oil” (there wasn’t) has now delivered Republicans an election year boon with just two simple words: “Abolish ICE.” Democrats ranging from Statue of Liberty scaling activists to congressional candidates to bona fide U.S. senators have adopted the motto, which demands the dissolution of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The embrace of “Abolish ICE” as a campaign trail motto exposes Democrats as the party of ignorance, lawlessness, and open borders. All three are big losers with the American people, and Republicans should troll Democrats into shouting, “Abolish ICE!” at every turn.

ICE, which stands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security. Democrats have recently targeted the agency for separating illegal alien families at the U.S. border with Mexico. While the family separation policy has existed since 1997 and was robustly enforced at various points during the Obama administration with nary a peep from Democrats, the great irony is that it isn’t ICE separating families at the border. Rather, it’s up to Customs and Border Protection, which operates Border Patrol, to arrest foreign nationals crossing the southern border illegally. Democrats calls to “abolish ICE” for separating families at the border illustrate their ignorance of the very laws they wish to ignore.

But while Democrats are frequently wrong, they’re never in doubt. They may not know what ICE does, but their demand to abolish it highlights their increasing lawlessness. In recent weeks, a major Democrat lawmaker has openly called for mob terror against Republican officials. Left-wing commentators and activists within such movements as Black Lives Matter have suggested abolishing the police—whatever that means. The New York Democratic Socialists of America, of which Democrat congressional nominee Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member, recently declared, “Abolish ICE. Abolish prisons. Abolish cash bail. Abolish borders.” By taking aim at law enforcement per se, Democrats offer a vision of America governed not by duly enacted law passed by representative institutions but rather a country governed by the caprices and prejudices of men, popular sovereignty be damned. (Read more from “Democrats’ 2018 Slogan Is a Godsend for Republicans” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s a Scary Thought – Google.Gov

/0 Comments/in , /by

I read an enlightening piece this week in The New Atlantis – a very serious magazine – that I hope is read soon by Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, every member of the House Freedom caucus, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the conservative minority among Senate Republicans and all Americans who are suspicious of mega-rich, mega-powerful corporations like Google, Facebook and Amazon.

Written by Andrew White, the headline is very simple – not to mention alarming: “Google.gov.” The subheadline: “Amid growing calls to break up Google, are we missing a quiet alignment between ‘smart’ government and the universal information engine?” . . .

I’ll summarize a few of the alarming things you will learn from this piece – with my help, of course:

Serious publications from left to right have been paying attention to Google lately. In February, the New York Times Magazine published “The Case Against Google,” about how “the search giant is squelching competition before it begins.” The Wall Street Journal published a similar article in January on the “antitrust case” against Google, along with Facebook and Amazon, whose market shares it compared to Standard Oil and AT&T at their peaks.

Google and Barack Obama’s administration had a “uniquely close relationship. Their special bond is best ascribed not to the revolving door, although hundreds of meetings were held between the two; nor to crony capitalism, although hundreds of people have switched jobs from Google to the Obama administration or vice versa; nor to lobbying prowess, although Google is one of the top corporate lobbyists. Rather, the ultimate source of the special bond between Google and the Obama White House – and modern progressive government more broadly – has been their common ethos. Both view society’s challenges today as social-engineering problems, whose resolutions depend mainly on facts and objective reasoning. Both view information as being at once ruthlessly value-free and yet, when properly grasped, a powerful force for ideological and social reform. And so both aspire to reshape Americans’ informational context, ensuring that we make choices based only upon what they consider the right kinds of facts – while denying that there would be any values or politics embedded in the effort.”

(Read more from “Here’s a Scary Thought – Google.Gov” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A New SCOTUS Justice: What Will Change and What Won’t

/0 Comments/in , /by

Who would have thought we’d reach a point in history when the entire purpose of control of the Senate is to confirm judges so that the legislating can all be outsourced to the courts? Yet here we are: a vacancy for the swing vote on the Supreme Court is now the most consequential decision of our time.

Despite the opportunity to move the court to the right, I still believe the best thing for the country and for conservatives would be to push for a grand bargain – taking the key political issues of our time out of the courts and returning them to the political branches. In the long run, it’s the right thing to do, and judicial supremacy, will never be a worthwhile tradeoff for conservative political outcomes. Nonetheless, the Left built this system; now it’s time for them to lie in the bed they made. Trump should leave nothing undone to nominate the most verifiable conservative on the important issues of the day. Democrats will go nuclear on anyone he picks. He will not get brownie points for picking a stealth nominee who is unknown. I agree with those including Mark Levin who believe someone with a well-known philosophy like Mike Lee would make the most sense given the political dynamics of our time.

With that said, how much will really change even if Trump nominates someone like Mike Lee to fill Kennedy’s seat?

Anthony Kennedy wasn’t the only problem

We must remember that, even though we would have a clear 5-4 majority on most issues, there are a number of factors sustaining the judicial Gomorrah into which we have descended. It took decades to descend to the abyss, and we won’t escape it with one more Supreme Court pick.

Several years ago, I listed a dozen reasons why the court system is irremediably broken on political issues and why the judiciary seems to be (recent victories not withstanding) a one-way street and a dead end for conservative political outcomes. Ultimately, conservative justices, to their credit, will always be consistent and intellectually honest. But because of the inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty of the liberal justices, we too often lose politically in the long run. This is why we need to move, in general, toward taking political issues out of the courts.

A number of circuit courts and an endless number of district courts will remain irrevocably anti-constitutional, even if Trump secures two terms as president. There are a slew of new-age “resistance” types on the bench, and no number of conservative judges could counteract their disregard for the Constitution and all legal norms. So long as the other two branches show no signs of pushing back against the forum-shopped nationwide injunctions, the Left will always be able to create jurisprudential and political velocity for their radical ideas and grind our national security, immigration policies, abortion regulations, and election integrity laws to a halt. They control the law schools, all of the big litigators (the ACLU, NAACP, etc.), and direct most of the suits at the court. Thanks to their ability to get insane rulings from lower courts in the first place, they are often able to win in the Supreme Court with a combination of outcomes-based jurisprudence from the four leftists and a quirky principled doctrine from one conservative on a given issue. This is what we saw from Gorsuch in a big immigration case and from Thomas in North Carolina redistricting this past year.

There are times when the Supreme Court stays these radical lower court rulings, but some of them fester for years and are never restrained or overturned. Consider that the radical ruling from Judge Dolly Gee forcing DHS to release so many illegal aliens and causing so much political upheaval has been allowed to fester for three years. Perhaps the most radical decision in recent memory is several lower court judges ruling that it’s illegal for Trump not to violate immigration law and sovereignty and that he must continue Obama’s amnesty. The Supreme Court refused to nip it in the bud, and foreign nationals are still being given Social Security cards against the law.

So how much of this will change with a new pick?

Roberts as the new swing vote?

The 800-pound gorilla in the room after the retirement of Anthony Kennedy is Chief Justice John Roberts. While he still adheres to the Constitution on most big issues, he has notably sided against conservatives on a number of lesser-known cases as well as his egregious decisions on Obamacare, Arizona’s immigration law, and blaming banks for failing blue cities. In addition, he views himself as the guardian of the high court’s institutional integrity and doesn’t want to be seen as shifting the court too far in any direction. The problem is that the court has moved so far to the left on so many issues in recent years, as Scalia warned at the end of his life, and the many lower courts are more radical than ever before. As such, the Supreme Court, in order to return to the Constitution, is going to have to move abruptly in a different direction from the rest of the legal system.

Will John Roberts become the new swing vote with Kennedy’s seat flipped to the right?

There will likely be a wide gulf between cases pertaining to new anti-constitutional jurisprudence percolating in the lower courts and cases that would implicate long-standing anti-constitutional theory. On the former, I believe Roberts will likely remain with conservatives. Therefore, having another reliable vote will give us a 5-4 majority to shut down the shenanigans in the lower courts – at least gradually. But on questions of overturning Roe and Obergefell and other long-standing, bad anti-constitutional precedent that the Left has successfully enshrined into civil rights and the 14th Amendment, I have a hard time believing Roberts consider overturning these precedents.

Four is also a magical number on SCOTUS

Part of conservative frustration with the Supreme Court is that the justices have been slow to reverse some of these off-the-wall opinions from lower courts on critical policy issues. It takes four members willing to grant an appeal in order to consider a case. Clearly, the denial of such appeals in many important cases related to election integrity laws and driver’s licenses for illegals demonstrates that not only Kennedy but also Roberts was unwilling to take up those cases. Again, this is part of his philosophy of trying to avoid the appearance of an activist court. But it takes an activist Supreme Court to actively undo the activist lower courts, who should never officiously intervene in so many of these issues to begin with. It’s not activism to shut down unlawful activism.

This is why a new justice is so important. We will now have four votes to consider these cases without Roberts. And Roberts has enough respect for the Constitution that he’d be hard-pressed to go along with new revolutionary ideas from lower courts, even if he is reluctant to initially take up the cases.

I see a lot of potential for progress on this front on the issues of guns, religious liberty, and codifying the Rainbow Jihad into Title XII of the Civil Rights Act. (For more from the author of “A New SCOTUS Justice: What Will Change and What Won’t” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

With Cartels in Control, There Are No Easy Answers to the Border Crisis

/0 Comments/in , /by

. . .Libertarians, too, are grasping for simple solutions. Over at Reason, J.D. Tuccille suggests that “better smugglers” are the best way to fight Trump’s draconian border policy. “Immigrants and their supporters should give some thought, and effort, to improved smuggling channels that treat migrants better than the existing criminal networks, and offer them a better chance of success,” writes Tuccille. He doesn’t mention the possibility that these new smugglers might find themselves at odds with the old smugglers, whose profits are at stake, or that jumping into Mexico’s migrant smuggling trade as a freelancer carries the risk of, say, being beheaded by one of the cartels.

Tuccille’s facile take is emblematic of the way the media has more or less ignored the role that “criminal networks” are playing in all of this—a role that makes easy solutions impossible. Throughout the border crisis, the media’s attention has been focused on the plight of Central American families and the chaos created by Trump’s zero-tolerance policy. Sure, the president likes to exaggerate how many MS-13 gang members are crossing the border, but neither Trump nor his detractors are thinking seriously about the escalating violence and accelerating social collapse now underway in Mexico and Central America, and how crime syndicates are playing into illegal immigration along the southern border. . .

National elections in Mexico are set for July 1, and so far 121 political candidates, most of them running for local office, have been assassinated, along with dozens of their family members. Hundreds more have been attacked. On Thursday, a mayoral candidate in Ocampo, in the western state of Michoacan, was killed outside his residence—the third politician to be killed in Michoacan in just over a week. Federal police responded by arresting the entire town’s 27-officer police force on suspicion of involvement with the murder, another reminder that across Mexico drug cartels have infiltrated local and state police forces, political machines, and major industries. Candidates who speak out against corruption and vow to stand up to the cartels are especially in danger.

The violence is bad enough that the U.S. State Department has issued “do not travel” advisories for five Mexican states—Colima, Guerrero, Michoacan, Sinaloa, and Tamaulipas, whose northern boundary runs along the U.S. border from Brownsville to Laredo, Texas. These are the same travel advisories in place for countries like Libya, Syria, and North Korea. For much of the rest of Mexico, including nearly the entire U.S.-Mexico border, the State Department advises Americans to “reconsider travel.”

Tamaulipas is so dangerous right now that the interim governor of Nuevo Laredo, which sits directly across the Rio Grande from Laredo, has warned his citizens not to try to travel to the United States through Tamaulipas, and especially not through the town of Reynosa, across the river from McAllen, Texas. The official warning came a day after gunmen believed to be associated with the Gulf Cartel ambushed marines with the Mexican Navy three times in Nuevo Laredo, killing one and injuring 12 others. According to Mexican officials, the gunmen wore marine uniforms and drove vehicles with government markings. The ambushes only stopped when the marines called in a helicopter gunship for support. (Read more from “With Cartels in Control, There Are No Easy Answers to the Border Crisis” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Ultimately Took Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain Wasn’t Mental Illness. It Was Something Worse

/0 Comments/in , , /by

. . .Every human being must at some time confront the same disease that claimed Anthony, Kate, Robin, and every other person who takes his or her life: meaninglessness. Why are we here and is this life worth living? It’s a sobering thought. . .

There is a reason trauma victims, combat survivors, and celebrities are so vulnerable to suicide. Victims of abuse and witnesses to war are exposed to a depth of humanity that many of us never get to. The lowest lows show us just how depraved and hopeless this world can be.

As Kate, Anthony, Robin, and so many other entertainers show, even giving joy to others, in the end, is not enough. So in the end, why bother? How can we not be defeated when we set our eyes on the brokenness of this world? The answer: to fix our eyes on another world. The writer C.S. Lewis famously said that, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” If we believe this life is all there is, the darkness will blind us to the majesty and beauty of life.

Suicide is the tragic, but reasonable response to being confronted by life’s reality with no salve of deeper meaning to bandage the wound. This is why a life without God, no matter how grand, will always leave our hearts unfulfilled.

So please, take medication. Talk to your family. Go get treatment. Your life is precious to God and the people around you. It is worth fighting for. But no matter what help those things bring, our hearts only find true peace when they live for the one who created them. I wish my friends Kate and Anthony had felt that peace. (Read more from “What Ultimately Took Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain Wasn’t Mental Illness. It Was Something Worse” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clinton Emails: What the IG Report Refuses to Admit

/0 Comments/in , /by

Despite the sprawl of Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz’s 568-page report on the Clinton-emails investigation, there is precious little discussion of the most important issue: The Justice Department and FBI’s rationale for declining to prosecute Hillary Clinton. I believe this is intentional. The inspector general’s message is: “Despite pervasive political bias and investigative irregularities, which I have comprehensively documented, rest assured that nothing too terrible happened here.” . . .

In explaining themselves to the IG, Obama Justice Department and FBI officials contended that the make-or-break issue in the case was whether they could prove mens rea — criminal state of mind. In this instance, that involved former secretary of state Clinton’s knowledge and intent regarding the unauthorized transmission and retention of classified information. Investigators say it dawned on them at a very early stage that they could not. Hence, they urge, their decisions to allow the election calendar to impose a time limit on the investigation, to limit the amount of evidence they considered, to be less than aggressive in obtaining evidence, and to draft an exoneration of Clinton months before interviewing her (and other key witnesses), were entirely reasonable. . .

A comprehensive critique of the investigators’ approach would have described the evidence they chose not to weigh. That would have been consistent with other parts of the report, in which Horowitz dilates on the minutiae of investigative techniques the agents and prosecutors eschewed.

A detailed description of the grossly improper communications system Clinton established would have illustrated that she knew full well the risk she was running. A large percentage of the secretary of state’s job involves classified matters. We are not talking merely about the exchange of documents marked classified but, more commonly, constant deliberations about sensitive intelligence in classified documents, briefings, and conversations. Clinton’s willful concoction of a home-brew communications network — not a harried official’s occasional, exigent use of private email for official business, but her rogue institution of a private, non-government infrastructure for the systematic conduct of State Department business — made the non-secure transmission and storage of classified information inevitable.

Horowitz’s fleeting conclusion that the decision not to charge Clinton was rational and not necessarily motivated by political considerations hinges on the assumption that the intent evidence truly was as sparse as the FBI and Justice Department described it. Of course the decision to decline prosecution was defensible, if not incontestable, if one accepts that false premise. And Horowitz does not just accept the premise; he treats it as a background assumption, writing as if there’s no other conceivable way to look at the case. (Read more from “Clinton Emails: What the IG Report Refuses to Admit” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Opinion: Today’s Campuses Are Worse Than Sodom and Gomorrah

/0 Comments/in , /by

British philosopher G.K. Chesterton predicted in 1926 that the “next great heresy is going to be simply an attack on morality; and especially on sexual morality…. The madness of tomorrow is not in Moscow but much more in Manhattan.” Philosopher C.S. Lewis, the foundation for whose conversion to Christianity (from atheism) was born of reading Chesterton’s books, once observed, “Sex is not messed up because it was put in the closet; it was put in the closet because it was messed up.” And just recently, at an early April conference at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, University of Virginia (UVA) religious studies Professor Vigen Guroian complained of higher education’s hypocrisy. Pointing out that colleges do in fact act in loco parentis, heavily policing alcohol and drug use, he asks why they also don’t police promiscuity. The short answer: When a heresy holds sway it becomes orthodoxy, at least for a time — and you don’t question orthodoxy.

Yet forget about policing promiscuity. Today’s colleges actually encourage it to a point of almost making Sodom and Gomorrah look saintly. Consider that the Ivy League’s Yale University hosted rapper Elizabeth Eden Harris, who goes by the moniker “cupcakKe,” at its April Spring Fling celebration. One student commentator called her emanations “sins, not songs” and “musical porn, plain and simple,” as she “sings about violent sex, oral sex, and having genitalia ‘like I’m eight,’” reports an April 11 College Fix headline. The details are even worse, but I’ll spare you.

Two days earlier, the College Fix reported that the “University of Tennessee at Knoxville is hosting ‘Sex Week’ [April 6 through 12] at which students will learn about a wide variety of sexual practices and topics,” including a class “titled ‘Butt Stuff 2.0: The Pegging,’” which we’ll not describe here. The Fix also informs, “Other events during the week include an art exhibit titled ‘Send Nudes ;),’ a cabaret show, and a workshop about ‘Black Liberation through Sexual Pleasure.’… Workshops such as ‘Masturbation Nation,’ ‘Trans Convo Starter Pack,’ ‘Tinder and Tea,’ and the ‘Science of Abortion’ are also on the schedule.”

Far from the above being an outlier, university Sex Week events are common today. For example, Campus Reform reported four years ago that the “University of Chicago is kicking off Sex Week 2014 with a ‘Lascivious Ball’ in which students will not be required to wear clothing.” In 2015, the College Fix informed that “Harvard University will soon mark its annual ‘Sex Week’ observance, which this year features a workshop on how to navigate sex involving bondage and sadomasochism in the dorms — complete with whips and floggers.” And in March, the publication told us that the “annual ‘Sex Week’ at Northwestern University will feature a Chicago-based dominatrix named ‘Lady Sophia’ who will teach the students various BDSM practices.” (Read more from “Opinion: Today’s Campuses Are Worse Than Sodom and Gomorrah” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

There’s a Reason Liberals Are Always so Angry

/0 Comments/in , /by

Have you ever wondered why rage seems to be “all the rage” with liberals these days? Every time you turn around there’s another march for this or protest against that; recycled chants about how something “has got to go,” and a fawning media all too happy to report it as if it were news. It’s not news, of course, it’s a mass temper tantrum by political activists still unhappy their fellow Americans chose to reject Hillary Clinton in 2016. But there’s more to it than that, something strategic is at play.

Have you ever stubbed your toe and cursed in front of someone you otherwise would never consider using that kind of language in front of? Or gotten so mad while trying to fix something that you’ve ended up slamming it and making it worse? It’s likely you’ve done this or something similar because of one simple fact: emotion overrides logic.

When you’re angry or when you’re scared you aren’t thinking straight, you’re acting on emotion. That’s the state liberals have been keeping their base in since Donald Trump won the presidency.

To one degree or another, modern liberals have always used fear and anger to motivate their voters. After 9/11, Democrats ran on variations of “Republican policies are making us less safe.” With the terror attacks of that September morning still fresh in people’s minds, that was not designed to inspire.

To hear liberals tell it, this country is fundamentally racist and killing the planet. They, however, are the gatekeepers of fixing it all. (Never mind the fact that cities where they’ve had complete control for generations – Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, etc. – are used for backdrops for movies about post-apocalyptic futures because they require so little set construction.) (Read more from “There’s a Reason Liberals Are Always so Angry” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Kashuv: We Need to Stop School Shootings and Here’s How

/0 Comments/in , /by

More than three months have passed since a deranged teenager came into my high school and killed more than a dozen of my classmates. Yet the same old discussions keep going on and on and on — despite the fact that the people having these discussions keep saying something needs to change.

Many of the most vocal activists aren’t actually interested in change. They continue pushing the same old tired ideas in the same old tired way, but expecting a different response. Their only solution is gun control, which the American people have rejected for decades. They’ve got the media convinced, they’ve got celebrities convinced, and they’ve got billions of dollars at their disposal to saturate social media in ads in hopes that people will become convinced that their ideas are the right approach. . .

We need to get real about mental health care in this country. Affordable, accessible mental health care is essential. A person who would inflict the level of terror we’ve seen so far is sick — and he needs help. Yet, in America, it’s hard to get help. Access to mental health care needs to be easy, affordable, and prioritized.

We all need to be educated on the warning signs of a person in crisis. The refrain is the same after each one of these incidents — the shooter was a loner, someone who scared people, a person who was already on police radar. It’s only practical that we educate communities on recognizing the signs of an at-risk person, and teach them actionable steps to take.

We should take school security seriously. Gun-free zone signs don’t help. It’s absurd to think that they do. We protect our state houses, our sporting venues, and our concert halls with security. Why don’t we do the same for our children? (Read more from “Kashuv: We Need to Stop School Shootings and Here’s How” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.