Hey, Jimmy Kimmel: Here’s What the Founders Really Thought About Guns

With Jon Stewart off the air, it seems the left has found a new progressive comedian it can look to for all the big cultural and public policy debates.

After spending September lobbying on air to keep Obamacare, Jimmy Kimmel went on a rant this week on the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” TV show about the horrific mass shooting that took place in Las Vegas on Sunday. He made a fairly sweeping attack on widespread gun ownership in America and generally suggested that gun control will fix the problem of gun violence.

Statistics show gun control has little impact on decreasing crime and violence, but Kimmel chose to make his case by making jokes, saying “our forefathers wanted us to have AK-47s is the argument, I assume.”

Kimmel is suggesting that the Founders didn’t understand modern technology, and therefore, arguments about why they set out to defend gun rights in the Bill of Rights don’t apply to today.

That is, of course, a straw man argument.

The Founders did not design the Constitution so that it would only be applicable in their own day. The rights they aimed to protect weren’t tied to a specific time or era, but were timeless and universal.

A ‘Primary Law of Nature’

The Second Amendment was not made up out of thin air. The Founders saw it as a legal expression of a citizen’s natural right to self-defense and preservation, and his ability to resist governmental tyranny.

William Blackstone, a legal theorist who had an enormous influence on the Founders, wrote, “Self-defense … as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society.”

Self-defense is among the “God-given rights” that the Declaration of Independence refers to.

These principles are grounded in Western tradition and are at the cornerstone of our civilization—though they are increasingly dismissed as radical and “fundamentalist” by some in the modern media.

If one believes “rights” come from government, not God or nature, it is easy to see why those like Kimmel believe this ever-evolving set of rights simply needs to be legally updated from time to time.

But this is not how the Founders thought, nor is it what they conceived when they decided to protect the blessings of liberty for themselves or their posterity.

While the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment were eroded in the 20th century, new scholarship has recovered the Founders’ ideas. As George Mason University professor Nelson Lund wrote for The Heritage Foundation:

… Commentators sought to establish that the Constitution does protect an individual right to have weapons for self-defense, including defense against criminal violence that the government cannot or will not prevent.

This logic of self-defense has been at the heart of recent Supreme Court rulings that have sided with the right to bear arms.

Though many Americans believe these rights are inviolable, the challenge still remains: Should we ignore the Founders, or perhaps even the idea of natural rights, simply because technology has changed so radically?

The Founders and AK-47s

In Federalist 46, Alexander Hamilton explained why the right to bear arms was so fundamental to preserving American liberty.

In Europe, governments typically didn’t “trust the people with arms.” However, their history was filled with examples of leaders and governments trampling on the rights of the people with impunity.

This is what the Founders desperately wanted to avoid.

An armed populace, the “militia” that the Second Amendment refers to, is an additional check on the power of government—a last resort for those who may be oppressed.

Hamilton made this argument in an era when the kind of weaponry available to citizens was in even closer parity to what was available to militaries and governments.

As National Review’s David French perfectly wrote:

The musket was the principal weapon of armed conflict in the 18th century. An American leaving his home with a musket was on par with a member of the Continental Line. Not so with an American who possesses any number of AR-15s or AK-47s. The contemporary gap between civilians and the military is vast and growing.

The advancement of weapon technology would not likely have surprised the Founders, who after all lived in an era of remarkable innovation. What would shock them is that government would have become so powerful and capable of depriving people of their liberty in the blink of an eye.

This is exactly what gun rights advocates fear and what they believe is behind the gun control movement.

Neither Safe, Nor Free

The facts of the Las Vegas massacre are still muddy, but it’s clear the shooter was not stopped by current gun laws heavily restricting automatic weapons—which he may have used—nor would proposed “common sense” laws like cracking down on suppressors have made a difference.

While gun control activists jump on every shooting incident to push their agenda, the facts and opinions of the American people remain hardened against them.

When the American people, for instance, heard former President Barack Obama praise Australia’s gun control laws, this led to the logical conclusion that the real end goal is confiscation.

After a mass shooting in 1996, Australia implemented widespread gun control and confiscation measures. The number of guns taken in these mandatory “buyback” programs is estimated to be around 650,000 to a million.

To create a similar policy to Australia, the U.S. government would have to pluck over 100 million firearms from American citizens.

In some ways, Australia-style confiscation is the only logical place for the gun control argument to end if the idea is to make sure nobody ever dies from firearm usage. That goal is folly.

It must be noted that in order to sweep in and confiscate weapons en masse, the government would be taking on precisely the kind of power the Founders feared and wanted to protect themselves and future generations against.

Statistics on guns and gun crime have demonstrated very little to show for gun control laws. And Americans are simply unwilling to surrender their God-given rights based on dubious claims that the government can make us perfectly safe from evil-doers.

In the end, large numbers of Americans believe increasingly stringent gun laws will make us neither safe nor free.

So while those on the left, like Kimmel, make passionate pleas for this country to “do something,” like pass gun control to stop violence, few besides the already-converted are going to buy it. (For more from the author of “Hey, Jimmy Kimmel: Here’s What the Founders Really Thought About Guns” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Black Lives Actually DON’T Matter to NFL and the Left

Lost in the imbroglio over the NFL’s disrespect for our national anthem is the irony of the original impetus for Colin Kaepernick’s antics. Players are protesting supposed police brutality while new data shows there is a growing epidemic of violent crime in America, which is likely the result of dissuading police from proactive law enforcement work.

Sadly, the biggest victims of this rebounding epidemic are African Americans. Where is the protest or outrage over violent crime in inner cities rather than the police response to it (or lack thereof)?

It’s hard to overstate the importance of yesterday’s release of crime data from the FBI showing a second straight year with rising violent crime. After plummeting for 23 years, violent crime rose in 2015 and again in 2016, bending the only positive social trajectory we have witnessed over the past generation.

According to the FBI, violent crime rose by 4.1 percent and the murder rate spiked by 8.6 percent — the greatest single-year increase in 25 years. Also, while the murder rate spiked in all city size groups, it skyrocketed by over 20 percent in cities with over 1 million people. This, after increasing by a similar rate in 2015.

While the overall violent crime rate is still relatively low compared to the ‘70s, due to the quarter-century-long decline, the rate has now climbed back to 2012 levels, setting us back five years’ worth of progress.

These latest numbers demonstrate that the 2015 increase was not a blip on the radar but a likely trajectory change. Unlike most other statistics, which fluctuate from time to time, this new trend is very alarming.

When violent crime drops every year for over two decades, there are clearly some fixed and inveterate macro-factors at play. While criminologists disagree over the causes behind the drop, more aggressive policing and tougher sentences are undeniably a major part of the equation.

But whether one believes the great crime-reduction miracle is the result of tough-on-crime laws or other sociological reasons, it takes a pretty transcendent countervailing factor to reverse this 23-year trend by even a small percentage, much less such a significant increase.

This is why it’s dishonest when some major media outlets tout the fact that crime is still relatively low compared to the pre-‘90s era; there has been a generational sea shift in violent crime that is almost permanent. Of course, it will take many years of dismantling law and order to return to the pre-Giuliani days. Do we really want to wait for another few years of spikes in crime to pull the fire alarm? (For more from the author of “Black Lives Actually DON’T Matter to NFL and the Left” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

I’m a Black Football Fan, and I’m Done With the NFL

Saturday night working in my wood shop, I heard a reporter on the radio say, “Trump has found someone else to pick a fight with, the NFL.” Clearly, the reporter wanted listeners to believe Trump was the bad guy. And yet, fake news media swears their reporting is not biased.

Leftists are outraged because Trump said, “The NFL should fire or suspend players who kneel during our national anthem.” I totally agree with our president. I suspect a majority of Americans also agree. Strictly from a common sense business point of view, shouldn’t team owners stop their players from doing things that turn off football fans? America and football fans have been extremely good to these spoiled brat wealthy players. Pro athletes live lives far above most Americans in terms of finances, power and influence. Fans do not deserve pro athletes slapping us in the face.

My immediate response to Trump’s recommendation to the NFL was, “Amen brother! Thank God for Donald Trump!” Folks, I am so sick of wimpy politicians. More and more our country is turning into a bizarro-world in which politicians are terrified of offending Leftists, scrambling to meet their absurd demands. Trump is a straight-talkin’ real man with backbone; a long-awaited breath of fresh air in the international political arena.

On Sunday, seeing NFL coaches and players in locked arms, protesting Trump for criticizing players who dis our flag was devastating to me as a football fan. We tune in to watch football, not to see players giving our nation their middle finger. By NFL owners, coaches and players saying screw you Trump, I feel like the NFL is saying screw you America and fans. (Read more from “I’m a Black Football Fan, and I’m Done With the NFL” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Pope is a Heretic

We are in confusing times, with a myriad of cross-currents and whirlpools.

If you have not yet heard, Pope Francis has been hit with a direct pie-in-the-face criticism. Not from Protestants, but from Catholics. Most people reading this will be non-Catholics, but they have a direct stake in what is now on-going in the Catholic Church.

Christians have found common ground in the last forty years, beginning with abortion. First class, ripping-apart-an-unborn-baby abortion.

But many other things they have not been able to agree on, although a few Protestants have come to grudgingly accept the Catholic position … on contraception and on divorce-and-remarriage.

They have discovered that it was, not too long ago, the unanimous consensus of Protestants that contraception and divorce-and-remarriage were incompatible with Sacred Scripture — that supposed lifeline of Protestant theology.

But now it appears that Pope Francis has become … a Protestant. He has admitted that allowing Holy Communion can be OK for the divorced-and-remarried, in utter defiance of Matthew 19 and 1 Cor 11:29. If Protestants reading this have their own explanation of what divorce or Holy Communion is — or was — it was not the historic reality of Christianity. Even the Reformation was not triggered by these controversies, but came later, and not to all of the denominations.

And the orthodox, evangelical, main-line and fundamentalist Protestants have danced around the air-tight admonition of Christ regarding divorce-and-remarriage for nearly a hundred years or more. It has been an internal contradiction of devotion to Sacred Scripture. Some things are open to interpretation. It would appear Christ’s opinion of remarriage after a divorce is not one of them. Many of those reading this have done so, even more than once. I offer no judgment. I only give you Christ’s opinion, an opinion held by both Catholics and Protestants until very recently.

Catholic teaching has maintained it, and it is Pope Francis’ duty, not to reinvent the wheel, but to keep the one that is already in place in good repair. And, it ought to be noted, no divorced-and-remarried Catholic is excommunicated. They are welcome at Mass. Many surreptitiously go to Holy Communion anyway, often with a nod and a wink from their parish priests. Until now, it was a local problem, usually brushed aside by priests and bishops. Now, it is systemic.

If the Catholic Church goes into schism, as it appears it is about to do, then all of Christianity is going to descend into a maelstrom of contradiction, confusion and uncertainty. Indeed, many Protestants will come to realize that their own defense of Christian Truth will now be undermined, since it was the Catholics that long, long ago defended those truths against: Gnostics, Arians, Cathars, Monophysites, Iconoclasts, Monothelites, Albigensians, Nestorians, Waldensians.

I omit Luther and Calvin simply because we cannot agree on that. They will find that with over a billion Catholics in world-wide schism, Christian safety will rest on a foundation of sand before the monstrous and murderous power of the secular world.

Pope Francis, now a de facto Protestant, has destroyed three of the seven sacraments at once: Confession, because now adultery will not need to be seen as sinful. Next, marriage, because now if we can be open to adultery, why not polygamy, homosexual unions, incestuous and bestial marriages? And finally the heart of Catholicism, the Real Presence of Christ, now merely symbolic and not very important, after all.

Francis is himself is a jumble of contradictions. He is not the friendly, humble papa depicted in the media. He is vacillating, inconsistent, impulsive, mean-spirited and vicious, firing or marginalizing those who have the audacity to challenge his orthodoxy. He expects, obedience — a Catholic concept — to his Petrine Office, while at the same time he reinvents the Truths of Christ, found not only in Scripture, but in the long-standing teachings of the one Catholic Church.

“Jesus Christ the same, yesterday, today and forever.” I am not sure all Christians recite this, but Catholics do. If Pope Francis is right, it appears that God can change His mind after all.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

No, the #TakeAKnee Protests Are Not ‘Brave’

So, President Donald Trump literally brought his political opponents to their knees over the weekend, and somehow the athletes and others kneeling in protest of the national anthem are being paraded as “brave,” which is nonsensical and gives Trump exactly what he wanted.

Let’s back up and review. Last Friday, during a rally for Sen. Luther Strange, R-Ala., the president made an offhand comment criticizing the National Football League for standing by while players like Colin Kaepernick kneel in protest during the national anthem. Playing to the crowd with a comment he knew would be popular (it turns out “make America great again” Trump supporters have little tolerance for people who disrespect the American flag and the national anthem), the president rhetorically asked his audience, “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, say ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, he’s fired? He’s fired!’”

President Trump was looking for two things — the applause of the crowd at the rally (which would solidify his base), and the mainstream media to overreact to that comment (which would solidify his base). He got both, so on Saturday he doubled down on a winning formula by disinviting the Golden State Warriors to the White House because Stephen Curry was thinking about skipping the traditional NBA champions celebration. He followed that up by criticizing NFL players who protest the national anthem over and over and over again.

That formula — incendiary comment plus media overreaction equals profit — paid off bigtime on Sunday, when hundreds of NFL players and coaches decided to protest President Trump by taking a knee during the national anthem before Sunday’s games started. This is the exact reaction the president wanted. With the latest iteration of Obamacare repeal all but dead in the United States Senate, with the details on tax reform still unclear, with no big wins since Neil Gorsuch, and with President Trump’s Senate candidate lagging behind in Alabama, Trump needed to remind the people who made him president how awful the Left is to shore up his support.

Trump got what he wanted in spades — first with the athletes stupidly disrespecting a symbol of American unity to protest an allegedly divisive president, and second with a chorus of liberal blue checkmarks on Twitter proclaiming NFL kneelers to be “brave” for doing so.

Taking the knee during the national anthem is not brave. At all. What, exactly, are these multi-millionaire athletes risking by doing what’s popular — protesting President Trump — to the adoration of liberals in our entertainment-media complex and in pop culture? Not their jobs. Colin Kaepernick wasn’t drafted by the NFL because he’s a bad quarterback, not because of his protest, and the NFL is not about to fire hundreds of its players (and the coaches who supported them).

Ultimately, they risk nothing except the ratings of people who are tuning out because they don’t want football games politicized. And you know what? When people tune out because of these protests, that doesn’t bring attention to injustices in American society — what the kneelers supposedly want. It doesn’t bring people together. Instead, it just makes patriotic Americans angry and fuels the divisions in this country. Hardly brave.

You want to know what real bravery is? Real bravery is risking your life to save others. That’s what Robert Engle did when he tackled the gunman shooting up the congregation of Burnette Chapel Church of Christ Sunday morning. After witnessing six people in his congregation get shot by a masked man wielding two firearms, Engle leapt into action and subdued the gunman — taking injuries as he was pistol-whipped. In the struggle, the shooter shot himself, and Engle retrieved his own firearm from his car to hold the man until the police arrived.

“He’s amazing,” a witness told reporters about Engle. “Without him I think it could be worse. He was the hero today.”

But Engle didn’t take credit for himself. “The real heroes are the police, first responders and medical staff and doctors who have helped me and everyone affected,” he said, asking for prayers for all those injured as well as the shooter.

Forty-two people were at the church the morning of the attack. Seven people were shot, one fatally in the parking lot, and because Robert Engle risked his life, no more were hurt. Nobody outside that church knew who Robert Engle was on Saturday.

He didn’t act for fame, for a message, or for glory. He took a stand, risking everything, to help people in need. That’s real American bravery, and the American people know it.

Taking a knee cannot compare to the real bravery of America’s Robert Engles, the bravery of our policemen, firefighters, first responders, soldiers, and veterans. The liberal chorus in the entertainment and pop-culture world is upholding a virtue-signaling as virtue. This is disgusting to those who can see through it. And that’s how the Left plays into Trump’s hands. (For more from the author of “No, the #TakeAKnee Protests Are Not ‘Brave'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Destroying Monuments and Lying About Race

. . .I am confident most of you could share wonderful tales of interracial friendships, acts of kindness, and people overcoming their differences. Leftists are the ones who seek to keep the racial divide going.

Leftists love to promote rare incidents of racism while purposely ignoring the normalcy of Americans getting along.

By voting for Obama, white America clearly hoped to end our racial divide and apologize for slavery. Meanwhile, Leftists relentlessly promote their lie that America has not changed racially since the 1950s. Leftists say the only way to make things right (fair) in America is for government to control every aspect of our lives, get rid of the Constitution and force us to behave according to their socialist/progressive beliefs (anti-Christian, anti-American, and anything goes morally). This is why Leftists cheered every time Obama overrode the Constitution with an illegal executive order that repealed another of our Constitutional rights.

During my Baltimore visit with Dad, several relatives stopped in to say hello. They were sympathetic to Colin Kaepernick who started the movement to dis our flag. They also sided with the thugs who are destroying Confederate monuments. Every black relative I spoke with was doing well, living their American dream. And yet, their anti-America and anti-Trump mindsets felt like an impermeable black cultural thing. Fake news media feeds their negative views of America and Trump. All my truths in defense of America and Trump fell on deaf ears. I felt like a stranger in a strange land, a voice of truth crying in the wilderness.

Jesus instructed his disciples, “If any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.” This is the approach I’ve taken with my relatives who refuse to believe the truth about the greatness of America and Trump striving to make her great for all Americans. I move on spreading truth elsewhere. (Read more from “Destroying Monuments and Lying About Race” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

You ‘Really Have to Be Blind’ to Ignore This Obama Scandal

Thursday evening, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin weighed in on Samantha Power’s role in “unmasking” individuals during the final days of the Obama administration.

“This grave scandal is […] the Obama administration’s abuse of power like we’ve never seen in modern American history,” said Levin.

Fox News reported Wednesday that Power, as U.S. ambassador to the U.N., made more than 260 requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting last year. In her role as ambassador, Power had no apparent intelligence-related function, making her unmasking requests highly suspect.

“You really have to be blind if you don’t see the extent to which the prior administration violated our trust, violated our rules, violated the law in using the power of the federal government to wiretap, to conduct other forms of espionage, to abuse the FISA courts, to abuse the warrants that they received to target people they disagreed with, including with the IRS … to target people they disagreed with including with the FBI and the Justice Department,” Levin said.

And what is most appalling is the behavior of the media, Levin said, who are in “full cover-up mode.”

Listen:

“This isn’t a joke,” Levin said. “This is issue number one.” (For more from the author of “You ‘Really Have to Be Blind’ to Ignore This Obama Scandal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions Should Resign

We must all be Michael Morell now.

We must resign.

Morell resigned from his post as non-resident senior fellow of Harvard’s Kennedy School after the gender-bending traitor formerly known as Bradley Manning was invited also to be a visiting fellow this year.

In doing so, Morell still managed to grovel at the feet of the Rainbow Jihad, stating his support for Manning’s bra- and makeup-wearing fetish. But apparently he was not willing to become a total shill for the destruction of his country. The overall thrust of his argument was that we are running out of grownups in a world that must do better at sorting the good from the terribly bad.

Morell explained in his resignation letter that the Kennedy School’s invitation to Manning will “assist Ms. Manning [sic] in her [sic] long-standing effort to legitimize the criminal path that she [sic] took to prominence” and “may encourage others to leak classified information as well.”

You bet your cuck it does. Which begs this follow-up question: Who else in the current American political landscape has legitimized a path to fame and influence that has encouraged others to behave according to all their worst impulses and intuitions?

I’ll give you a hint: He’s spent almost a year now MAGA-ing his way to improving the standing of Obamacare and cozying up to amnesty — otherwise arguably known as the greatest political betrayal of an election platform in the history of American politics.

That’s right! Mistuh Twump is your guy.

That’s why the time to hope for the best with him, as I publicly did immediately following his election after months of #NeverTrump activism, is dead and gone. It is now abundantly clear for all to see that Trump has perpetuated a fraud and must actively be opposed. For no one is more fervently #NeverTrump than Trump himself.

We must resign from the notion that he is “better than Hillary.” Spending the month of September trading bedroom eyes with Democratic leadership isn’t a gambit of four-dimensional chess. Oh, no. Because Hillary was right about this: It does indeed take a village, and Trump has chosen his.

He’s a New York progressive. Always was. Which means he lies. A lot.

He’s a progressive who wore various masks, going back to 2011, when he became a Republican and began his long con. But now he’s like Will Ferrell’s character in the movie “Old School” — just publicly admitting that the man he really wants to be is the one who drunkenly strips buck-naked and runs through the streets because that’s his narcissistic version of “Chariots of Fire.”

We must resign from emoting, psychologizing, or parsing both our logic and our hopes as if such a tawdry scam can be remade to our liking or its damage can be minimized because of the magic R. Trump counts on that. He counted on that all the way to the White House.

Enough already.

G.K. Chesterton wisely said that “evil always take advantage of ambiguity.” Preach? In fact, preach it high and preach it low.

So we must resign from refusing to make the main thing the main thing. Either we are a nation built on the laws of nature and nature’s God, or we are not. And if we are, men like Vice President Mike Pence and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should resign from their cherished seats at the table in protest.

Because those seats at the table were never any better than playing Russian roulette. But now the deal has been altered further, and winning simply isn’t an option unless you refuse to play the game. Because even if you manage to avoid that first bullet in the chamber, Trump has made it clear the game is rigged against everyone. There’s a hand grenade with the pin pulled under every seat.

So resign. Write a big, fat John Hancock that says “no more,” and do everything you can to alter our wretched course. Because staying on board while Trump hands the reins to his new BFFs “Chuck and Nancy” makes you an accomplice to the scam. (For more from the author of “Why Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions Should Resign” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Can’t We Talk? No, We Can’t

There is a new film out by Pamela Geller, Can’t We Talk About This? Those were the last words spoken by Theo Van Gogh as he was being murdered at 9 in the morning on a main thoroughfare in Amsterdam. I urge you to watch and support this film.

Van Gogh was a good friend of Pam’s. He had just completed a short film with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, titled Submission. It describes the treatment of women under Islam. Mohammed Bouyeri, a Moroccan-Dutch Muslim, took offense at the film and shot Van Gogh as he was riding to work on his bike. Bouyeri then stabbed Van Gogh, cutting his neck in an attempt to behead him. He used a second knife to pin a note on Van Gogh’s body.

The note was addressed to Ali and others, including Jews, Netherlands politicians, and a long list of the usual suspects. Fraught with misspellings, the five-page letter started:

Dear miss Hirshi Ali,

Since your appearence in the political arena of the Netherlands you are constantly engaging in terrorizing Muslims and Islam with your remarks. You are not the first at this and will also not be the last who has joined the crusade against Islam.

With your defection you have not only turned your back on the Truth, but you also march along the ranks of the soldiers of evil. You mince no words about your hostility against Islam, and for this your masters have rewarded you with a seat in parliament.

They have found in you a companion in their crusade against Islam and Muslims.

A companion who gives them the “gunpowder” so they don’t have to do the dirty work…

Did you catch that? Hirsi Ali is terrorizing Muslims by talking about her treatment at their hands.

Right.

I would like to believe Mr. Bouyeri is just a maladjusted lunatic, but unfortunately he represents a familiar mindset and temperament among Muslims. A September 7th Time magazine interview quotes Yahya Cholil Staquf, one of Indonesia’s most influential Islamic leaders. What he says is so important I have reproduced a few of the Q & As here. It is especially important given Time magazine’s reach and its liberal readership:

Q: Many Western politicians and intellectuals say that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. What is your view?

A: Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Q: What basic assumptions within traditional Islam are problematic?

A: The relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, the relationship of Muslims with the state, and Muslims’ relationship to the prevailing legal system wherever they live … Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity.

Perhaps there were reasons for this during the Middle Ages, when the tenets of Islamic orthodoxy were established, but in today’s world such a doctrine is unreasonable. To the extent that Muslims adhere to this view of Islam, it renders them incapable of living harmoniously and peacefully within the multi-cultural, multi-religious societies of the 21st century. (Emphasis added)

I put that last sentence in italics because in my Red-Green Axis presentations, I stress the inability of many Muslim refugees to assimilate. In fact, their goal is not assimilation but conquest. The interview continues:

Q: A Western politician would likely be accused of racism for saying what you just said.

A: I’m not saying that Islam is the only factor causing Muslim minorities in the West to lead a segregated existence, often isolated from society as a whole. There may be other factors on the part of the host nations, such as racism, which exists everywhere in the world. But traditional Islam — which fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity toward non-Muslims — is an important factor. (Emphasis added)

Here again, Staquf reinforces my assertion that Muslims do not want to assimilate.

Leftists and establishment Republicans (but I repeat myself) claim that terrorist groups like ISIS are un-Islamic – that they have somehow “hijacked” an otherwise peaceful religion. National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster asserts this in his defense of Islam. (Note: my exposé of McMaster reveals much more about this horribly unacceptable Trump advisor). Staquf has a blunt answer to this belief (italicized portions are my emphases):

Q: So the call by radicals to establish a caliphate, including by ISIS, is not un-Islamic?

A: No, it is not. [ISIS’s] goal of establishing a global caliphate stands squarely within the orthodox Islamic tradition. But we live in a world of nation-states. Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence … Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.

Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false. State laws [should] have precedence.

I cannot reproduce more of this interview here. Suffice it to say there are many more gems and I urge you to read the whole thing. I can only imagine the Time reporter’s pique at these repeated assaults on his idiotic, politically correct, left-wing presumptions. So as you might imagine, he had to get at least one swipe in against conservatives. He did so with his last question. But he got bitch-slapped on that one too:

Q: I would guess that you and I agree that there is a far right wing in Western societies that would reject even a moderate, contextualized Islam.

A: And there’s an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as de facto proof of Islamophobia. This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved.

“This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved.” So here we have a very influential Muslim confirming everything we “Islamophobes” say about CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the whole Red-Green Axis infrastructure. Amen brother! We are sick of being called Islamophobes for telling the truth by spineless cowards afraid of their own shadows.

In her documentary, Can’t We Talk About This? Pam Geller communicates this message in her inimitably convincing manner. This is a must-see film, available for viewing on Vimeo now.

This message needs to get out.

Editor’s note: The idea that Islam can be viewed through the political lens of left versus right is a highly dubious proposition. See this article I wrote in 2013. -MV

(For more from the author of “Can’t We Talk? No, We Can’t” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

DACA: Why Are People Upset That Trump Defended the Constitution?

So, it turns out all those DACA protests were silly.

When Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Tuesday, on behalf of the Trump administration, that President Obama’s illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals executive order would be rescinded, the Left created an uproar. Thousands took to the streets. Students walked out of their high schools. A march on the Brooklyn Bridge disrupted traffic. Activists stormed Trump Tower in New York City, and dozens were arrested.

The Democrats pounced on the outrage, stoking fear of impending mass deportations. Senator Bob Menendez, D-N.J., charged the president with racist motivations, saying “he has once again chosen to cloak his presidency with a white nationalist flag.” These were obvious lies.

Sessions’ announcement of the policy reversal made clear there would be a six-month delay in enforcement of the old, pre-DACA rules. President Trump urged Congress to get to work on quickly legalizing DACA and, with encouragement from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made clear on Thursday that the government would take “no action” to deport DACA recipients while Congress considers a new DREAM Act to grant amnesty to nearly a million illegal immigrants receiving benefits under DACA. The president pledged to sign that bill when Congress sends it to his desk.

So, no mass deportations. No real DACA repeal, either. The president is committed to a legislative legalization of what was an illegal executive order. Regardless of how you feel about the policy of amnesty for illegal immigrants, the president at least is fulfilling his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

DACA was unconstitutional. President Obama said so himself before reversing his position during an election year. “I am president, I am not king,” Obama said in 2010. Later in 2011, he reiterated “with respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.” Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants brought here as children always required an act of Congress, and now President Trump has provided Congress with the opportunity to do it.

That’s why the protests and attacks on DACA repeal were so absurd. They were attacks on the constitutional separation of powers by a group of people who want illegal immigrants to become citizens of the United States. Think of it.

If we’re going to toss out parts of the Constitution on a whim because it feels right, or because it would be “cruel” to wait around for Congress to exercise its responsibility to legislate, why stop at the separation of powers? Why respect some parts of the Constitution, i.e. the Bill of Rights, while we ignore other parts? Why should any law be respected when the supreme law of the land is ignored and held in contempt?

Why should you want to be a citizen of the United States when you demand that this country’s foundational laws be ignored?

It makes no sense, unless you don’t actually want to live in the USA — unless you want to fundamentally transform this country into something else. (For more from the author of “DACA: Why Are People Upset That Trump Defended the Constitution?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.