The James Comey Show: Hijinks and High Drama

Nothing against Broadway, but when it comes to good theater not much can beat The James Comey Show.

James Comey’s performance this morning in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee played to rapt audiences nationwide and packed bars in D.C. The spectacle shut down the Nation’s Capital like a blizzard. (Though what was being shoveled wasn’t snow.)

The Comey Show rolled out in three acts.

Act One: Trashing Trump

Former FBI Director James Comey did not come to praise Donald Trump but to bury him.

Comey said Trump administration comments about him were “lies plain and simple.” He typed up detailed memos of their chat because he was “honestly concerned (Trump) might lie about the nature of our meeting.” Comey felt important to get them written down because he had sensed he would someday need to defend the FBI.

Indeed ( the orchestra swells), Trump’s comments were an assault on the FBI itself.

Comey expressed befuddlement at the reasons behind his firing. Clearly Trump was out to”defame” him and the bureau. Still, of the many reasons offered by Trump and the White House, Comey has now settled on one: He was fired because of his role in heading the Russia investigation.

In his words, “The endeavor was to change the way the Russia investigation was being conducted. That is a very big deal.” He claims this had a “chilling” effect on the investigation.

However, under further questioning, Comey acknowledged the investigations haven’t been affected at all.

So, did Donald Trump obstruct justice? Comey declared it wasn’t for him to say. (Considering he said under oath in May he wasn’t obstructed, he could hardly say otherwise now.) However, he did reveal Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating possible obstruction of justice. And why is there a special counsel? You’ll have to wait until the shocking third act.

Meanwhile, Senator Jim Risch seemed to have slammed shut the book on the case for obstruction. Comey says Trump told him, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting … Flynn go.” Even in Comey’s version of events it was not a direction. It was an expression of hope. Said Sen. Risch, “You don’t know of anyone who has ever been charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?

As the curtain falls on Act One, the obstruction charge against Trump seemed to go “poof.” But the curtain soon rises and the spotlight hits Loretta Lynch.

Act Two: Trashing Others

The Scene: Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch is no longer sitting on a government plane with Bill Clinton. She’s being squashed under James Comey’s bus.

Comey revealed under oath that Lynch had directed him to avoid calling the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email antics an “investigation.” Lynch directed him to call it a “matter.” Not, “I hope you call it,” mind you. This gave Hillary Clinton cover during the campaign to falsely deny she was under investigation. The order made Comey “queasy.”

(Comey’s symptom of feeling queasy or uneasy around those more powerful would recur over and over again. Hardly becoming for a guy tasked with helping stop terrorists. But we digress.)

Also, Comey felt Lynch’s tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton was so improper it motivated him to go public with the FBI’s findings in the Hillary investigation.

Lynch wasn’t the only character to bite it in the second act. The media were taken down as well.

Comey declared that news reports on the Russia investigation based on leaks were trash. “There have been many, many stories based on — well, lots of stuff, but about Russia that are dead wrong.” The New York Times in particular was cited for a story claiming that the Trump campaign and other associates had “repeated contact with senior Russian officials in the year before the election.” Comey agreed with Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) the story was “almost entirely wrong.”

The New York Times must not have been too happy. The liberal giant soon tweeted out a rather unfriendly reader comment.

Which leads us to our third act, whereby the hero who speaks of independence, honesty, and the shining city on the hill, unveils his true, dark, colors.

Act Three: James Comey Trashing Himself

In a stunning admission, Comey confessed that he used a “close friend” on the Columbia law faculty to leak his Trump meeting memos to the media. “Make sure this gets out,” he told friends. (Almost word-for-word what former State Department official Evelyn Farkas told MSNBC she had hoped to do with classified intel on Russia and Trump.)

His mission: To force the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.

Let’s put aside the twisted irony that the man responsible for finding leakers was himself a leaker. Let’s also put aside, for now, the question of what else the FBI director may have leaked about Trump over the past year.

James Comey confessed to leaking the details of privileged conversations with the President of the United States. “One of which he testified was classified,” observed Trump’s personal lawyer.

George Washington University legal scholar Jonathan Turley says this admission could put Comey in legal jeopardy. “Besides being subject to Nondisclosure Agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and nonclassified information.” Further, “those memos could be viewed as a government record and potential evidence in a criminal investigation.”

Didn’t see that one coming.

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld tweeted he sensed Comey had prepared for the hearing by studying the works of West Wing creator Aaron Sorkin.

Little did Gutfield know that by show’s end Comey is Col. Jessup in Sorkin’s A Few Good Men.

Col. Jessup spends the first two hours presenting himself as the epitome of strength and American virtue. Then after bellowing the immortal line “You can’t handle the truth!” Col. Jessup implicates himself in a serious crime. As Jessup is being read his rights, he shouts, “What’s going on here?!? I did what I had to do!”

Whether what Comey”had to do” was criminal is to be determined. Whether he’s been acting out of justice or vengeance awaits the verdict of the American people.

However, as pure theater, The Comey Show deserves a round of applause.

And what was your review? (For more from the author of “The James Comey Show: Hijinks and High Drama” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Tolerance Will Not Stop Terrorism

At some point, leaders in the West will have to recognize that they share very little in common with the worldview of Islamic terrorists. At some point, they will have to take seriously Islamic theology and the mindset of a radical Muslim. At some point, they will have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot combat Islamic terrorism with tolerance.

Better Opportunities Won’t Combat Terrorism

In his significant new book, The Islam in Islamic Terrorism: The Importance of Beliefs, Ideas, and Ideology, Ibn Warraq writes:

There are many contemporary political commentators and intellectuals who do not accept what seems an obvious starting point in trying to explain the behavior of Islamic terrorists, namely their beliefs, their ideology as laid down in tract after tract, statement after statement, interview after interview, and book after book — books that are the careful work of Muslim scholars of Islam, lavishly sprinkled with quotes from the Koran, which is the very word of Allah, the hadīth (the sayings and deeds of Muhammad and his Companions), the sira (life of the Prophet), all used to justify their heinous acts, even against civilians, including women, children, and the old.

Because of this, Western leaders are always looking for other causes of Islamic terrorism. The problem is unemployment. Or poverty. Or lack of education. Or the history of Western colonialism in the Muslim world. Or something else. Anything but Islamic theology and beliefs.

Just last month, former Secretary of State John Kerry advised graduates of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government that the way to solve the terror problem in Middle East was to provide better educational and vocational opportunities for the youth. He said, “Surely we can begin to prevent tomorrow’s extremism by offering young people the promise of modernity and good governance, not the destruction of strapping on a suicide vest and blowing yourself up and a whole bunch of innocent people.” (He said this in the aftermath of the Manchester suicide bombing.)

The reality is that many terrorists come up from upper- and middle-class families. Many are well educated (including Ph.D.’s and medical doctors). And many have all the opportunities a young person could ask for. (Remember that Osama bin Laden was a friend of Saudi royalty and came from a rich, influential Saudi family.)

It is Islamic theology that drives the terrorist, and jobs, educational opportunity, and all the benefits of the West will not deter him. He is at war with the unbelievers, whether he finds them in London or Algeria. His sacred duty is holy war.

Denying the Root Cause

Speaking of the Charlie Hebdo slaughter in France, Ibn Warraq writes,

After the massacre “White House press secretary Josh Earnest suggested that ‘these are individuals who carried out an act of terrorism, and … later tried to justify that act of terrorism by invoking the religion of Islam and their own deviant view of it.’” This sounds as if the Charlie Hebdo terrorists set out to commit a random act of violence, and then, when they realized they needed some justification afterwards, plucked “Islam” out of the air by sheer chance.

Precisely. This is what our “enlightened” leaders would have us believe. These attacks have nothing to do with Islam. If we can understand what is upsetting these people, then we can live together in peace.

Not so. What is upsetting them is their theology.

After the most recent terrorist attack in London, major security questions are being asked. How did these terrorists slip through the cracks? Some were already known to the police and national security. Yet they were able to operate freely enough to concoct and carry out their murderous plot.

One of the London terrorists previously appeared in a UK documentary called The Jihadis Next Door in which he was seen praying with an unfurled ISIS flag. Yet he was able to remain in the UK and, quite obviously, was not that closely monitored.

Do the British authorities want to stop terrorism? Of course they do, with all their hearts and souls. Do they care deeply about the wellbeing of their people? Without a doubt. I’m sure many would give their lives to save the lives of others. And I imagine their system is strained to the max as they try to stay one step ahead of the killers.

But that illustrates a large part of the problem. Any country that thinks it can tolerate the presence of thousands of jihadi Muslims is deceiving itself. Soon enough, blood will be shed — lots of it.

Italy’s Intolerance — And Safety

I just spent three days in Italy and Germany. While in Italy, I spoke with a colleague who served as a policeman for years. He had dealt with high-level security cases in the past and explained to me why, so far, Italy has not had a rash of Islamic terror attacks. (He is not boasting; rather, he is grateful.)

One factor is that many Islamic immigrants pass from Africa into Italy on their way to other countries, so they are not as likely to launch an attack. They want Italy to be a safe haven for them.

Another is how the military police and local police are involved in their communities, constantly gathering and sharing information.

Yet another factor (only in Italy!) is that in Sicily, where I was staying, the mafia controls the building industry, including access to explosives, and they are not going to sell explosives to terrorists.

Finally, there is Italy’s intolerance of radical Muslims. My friend explained that the moment someone is caught going in this direction (in other words, acting like the jihadi next door), that person is arrested and deported. This is also widely reported in the media so as to send out a warning as well.

Because Italy is intolerant of this terrorist ideology, the government combats it more aggressively.

This does not guarantee the nation’s safety, but it goes a long way to preserving it, since you cannot fight terrorism with tolerance. Quite the contrary. It is only a strategic, wide-ranging, and uncompromising intolerance that can combat Islamic terrorism. That will never happen as long as Western leaders refuse to recognize the Islamic roots of Islamic terror. (For more from the author of “Tolerance Will Not Stop Terrorism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Political Correctness Won Trump the Presidency

It’s been seven months. Still many of us are trying to understand how Trump won the election last fall. I sure didn’t see it coming. All the surveys predicted a Clinton victory. Trump did plenty to make him unattractive to large groups of voters. Racism was a special concern, due to his comments about Hispanic “rapists,” his flirting with white nationalism and his talk of Muslim bans.

Political Correctness: The Underlying Cause?

I have been, and I still am, concerned with the way Trump handles racial issues. So I was not surprised to see The Nation reporting research by Sean McElwee and Jason McDaniel suggesting racism as a major reason explaining support for Trump. But a further look at this claim is not convincing, since I knew there were large numbers of previous Obama supporters who voted for Trump in 2016.

So I thought a better answer could probably be found elsewhere. Looking around, I found this Clearer Thinking analysis of 138 factors that might have influenced voters to choose one candidate over the other. I have questions about the methods, but we’ll bypass those.

The key is that other than belonging to the Republican Party, the best predictor of whether a person voted for Trump was whether he or she hated political correctness (PC). More than half (54 percent) of Trump’s vote came from those who totally agreed that there is too much PC in America. This is in contrast to racial issues, such as immigration, for example. Only 21 percent of Trump’s vote came from those who totally agreed that immigrants threaten American customs and values.

This makes sense to me. The way Trump offended certain groups supported the idea that he would fight PC. I remember talking to Trump supporters who wanted to “burn it down.” I was confused by this at the time, but now I think what they wanted was to burn down PC rules. These were not racists, they were people who hated PC.

Can This Explain the Perceived “Racial Resentment”?

Of course there were still some Trump voters who were attracted to the white nationalist message they believed he was presenting. So I want to be clear: I am not saying racism played no effect in any of Trump’s support. But I fear that some researchers and reports overstate its importance in his election.

Concerns over PC also help to explain research supporting McElwee and McDaniel’s racial resentment argument. They created what they call a “racial resentment” measure, which they describe (rather abrasively) as, “Racial resentment measures dog-whistle or color-blind forms of racism, such as the belief that black people need to simply ‘try harder’ to be successful in America.”

I have my own criticism of colorblindness. I do not think we will advance our race relations by ignoring the effects of racism in our history, or the ways it still impacts people of color today. But when I debate the merits of colorblindness with others, I don’t usually see them as having racial resentment.

Questions about colorblindness may tap into hostility against PC rules, though, since many people think society is fair as it is, and that PC makes it unfair. For people who truly think that we have defeated racism, efforts to keep on addressing it can seem like “PC”. People who voted for Obama five years ago, and Trump last year, did not suddenly turn and start resenting blacks. But they may have grown tired of PC rules over that period of time.

Did Racism Put Trump in the White House?

Now, in the past I have attacked Trump for race-baiting. I’ve argued that Christians were wrong to support him in view of his connection with the alt-right. One may wonder, then, why I criticize the argument about racism. Am I backing down from my own arguments? Not really. I still think Christians are going to pay a price for supporting Trump. It will become more difficult to reach socially conservative people of color. We’ve also badly damaged our witness by tying ourselves to the white nationalism that buttresses Trump. So I have not changed: I have been a critic of Trump in the past and will be one in the future.

But the truth and honesty remain vitally important. The research shows that anti-PC attitudes explain whites’ support for Trump better than racism or anti-black resentment.

I know that many liberals want to tie Trump’s election to racism. I would have no problem doing so if I thought the evidence warranted it. But it does not. (For more from the author of “Political Correctness Won Trump the Presidency” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Kathy Griffin, Cheap Grace, and the Mechanisms of Evil

Kathy Griffin is messing with me. I was all set to write a column about the “rush to forgiveness.” Now she has gone and short-circuited that by retracting her apology, like a bratty, defiant first-grader. But I won’t let that stop me. I’ll just add more at the end.

Surely you’ve seen Kathy Griffin’s wannabe ISIS photo. Maybe you’ve seen her hard-to-watch, traumatized video message of apology. Stunned by the backlash against her “let’s behead the president” photo stunt, Griffin seemed chastened and sorry. Not as sorry as Mel Gibson seemed after his drunken, anti-Semitic rant a decade ago. But sorry enough for some.

Online commentators who’d given no sign of forgiving Gibson for an intoxicated outburst treated Griffin very differently. They demanded that the rest of us accept her apology and move on. Presumably, we should accept her back into the charmed circle of highly-paid celebrities and cultural commentators after that apology. Because, you know, hosting TV specials is a basic human right. Even when you’ve worked for weeks on thinking through and preparing an image that encourages the ISIS-style execution of a U.S. president.

Meanwhile, Gibson (who suffers from bipolar disorder) is still amassing particles of forgiveness for something hateful he said while blind drunk. Double standards, anyone?

Sex Abuse and the Rush to Forgiveness

Some made Christian arguments for why we should take Griffin’s sorrow at face value and accept it. That’s what really bothered me. Mostly because I’m watching Netflix’s powerful series The Keepers (my full review runs next week). It covers the clerical sex abuse crisis among Catholics. I have read deeply and widely about that crisis, and learned about one of the key reasons that child rapists were set loose and allowed to rape again: Cheap grace and rushed forgiveness.

Clerics who’d used the confessional, or counseling sessions, or other positions of trust to prey on vulnerable teens hid behind that “cheap grace.” And often it worked. They’d combine a trip to confession, a crying jag in the bishop’s office, and a couple of months in “counseling.” That’s the modern version of a penitential pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

Then voila! They were ready to coach middle school wrestling teams again. To take boys on camping trips to the woods. To counsel fatherless tweens. If they fell again, they repented again, and pretty soon they were in a position to blackmail the bishops who’d rushed to forgive and forget.

Lest you think this is a Catholic problem: Some Western European countries are letting Muslim immigrants who left their countries to go fight for ISIS return and go back on welfare. Read those words again, one by one.

“Penitent” Nazis at Nuremburg

Clearly what these authorities are offering is not Christian forgiveness. It is a despicable liberal caricature of the Gospel. It’s Christian charity watered down to homeopathic doses. When God forgives a murderer, that shouldn’t get him out of jail time, or even death row. The chaplains at Nuremburg made that clear to the Nazi war criminals who bared their souls. Some even repented. That didn’t spare them the noose. Nor should it have.

God can afford to wipe our sins away and offer us a clean slate. He has several attributes which none of us (not even wealthy, liberal bishops or Scandinavian socialist bureaucrats) can boast:

Perfect knowledge. So He can read a sinner’s heart, and see if he’s sincere. (We can’t.)

Infinite power. So He can give a sinner more grace if he needs it and will accept it. (We really can’t.)

Eternal life, impassibility, and limitless resources. No sinner can really harm God. In one sense they can harm Jesus, Who eternally hangs on the Cross for our sins. But Jesus accepted that. He is willing and able to take it. (We can’t. If someone molests our son, or even loots our retirement account, those losses are irreparable.)

We have none of those divine attributes. Pretending we do is a piece of arrogant hubris. If some sociopath with a track record of lying and stealing claims that he found Jesus, that’s great for him. Pray that it’s true. But if you hire him to run your non-profit’s finances, you are worse than a fool. You’re reckless. And that’s a sin. Likewise, no child molester, however penitent, should ever be left near children. And no terrorist should ever leave prison.

What Griffin Should Have Done

Nor should we welcome back a public figure who has mocked the victims of terrorism to play at killing the president of the United States. The right thing for Griffin to do would have been to discreetly contact the families of Jewish journalists or Middle Eastern Christians — people who died in the same gruesome way she depicted in her Trump murder fantasy. She should have begged their forgiveness, both privately and publicly. Then she should have done long years of work for victims of terrorism. Pro bono. Zero salary. She should have worked at Krispy Kreme if necessary, purging in the sweat of her brow over hot grease her arrogance and malice.

Instead, she chose to playact. Her “apology,” we now know, was fake. She was stunned by the damage her career might suffer from her sadistic photo stunt. So like a chastened narcissist, she tried to manipulate us. She apologized to her fans — not to family victims of terrorists. Not to President Trump and his family. Not to millions of voters and her fellow citizens.

And now she has taken all of it back. Now she’s posing as the “victim” of “bullying.” At the hands of the people she victimized. Because they dared, dared to push back. To criticize her for , in effect, endorsing the murder of the president.

Beware of Griffinophobia

Words almost fail me. Has Griffin read the playbook of the Council on American-Islamic Relations? You know, the people who greet each terrorist attack with a solemn warning against Islamophobia? Will we soon hear of people losing their jobs because they indulged in Griffinophobia?

Even more, Griffin is enacting, within a single week, the arc of the LGBT movement’s attack on biblical Christianity.

Gay church activists use Christian mercy as the thin end of the wedge. They accuse those who guard against acceptance of sexual sin of being Pharisees. Of wanting to stone the adulteress whom Jesus Himself is sheltering. Of pride and hardness of heart. If they prevail and get some ministries approved that are more “accepting” of their tendencies, it never, never stops there.

Soon enough, those ministries have dropped talk of sin and forgiveness. They outright affirm the sexual practices that biblical Christians must condemn. (Meetings of the Catholic pro-gay ministry Dignity became “meat markets” for gays who weren’t even Catholic.)

LGBT activists target and try to marginalize any Christians who resist them — including genuinely penitent souls who suffer with same-sex attraction. It’s exactly as if pushy Jose Cuervo pitchmen took over an AA meeting — to mock, denounce, and exclude those who insist on remaining sober. I have seen these activists pull this off again and again in Catholic circles. They have conquered most Mainline Protestant churches. And they’re coming for the Evangelicals.

Griffin sniffed the air, and realized that she could get away with all of this. That she could cast herself as the victim in this farce, and become the most hardcore icon of anti-Trump “resistance.” She may even be elected as the next Democratic senator from the State of California.

But still, she has done us a favor. She has given us all a lesson in the mechanisms of evil. This is how hard it really is to repent. This is how ugly unrepented sin becomes when it festers. This is why the Son of God Himself had to hang up there on that cross. (For more from the author of “Kathy Griffin, Cheap Grace, and the Mechanisms of Evil” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Forget the Paris Accords: Climate Is Socially Constructed, Like Sex

The weeping and gnashing of teeth over President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Climate accords was deafening. I could barely hear my beagles baying at terrified skateboarders they were chasing down Commerce Street. Amidst the din, we did learn something. For instance, that Trump had rejected nothing less than “the future.” This from the Nobel Prize-winning former President Barack Obama, who really is, in Joe Biden’s words, “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” You can’t take that away from him.

All the usual suspects are howling that Trump has chosen “corporate greed” and “profits” over “the planet,” “mother Earth,” and the hopes and dreams of our grandchildren. I fully expect Kathy Griffin to join Katy Perry for a round-the-world climate awareness/cannibalism fetish tour, on Elon Musk’s private jet. Don’t worry, they’ll pay for it by purchasing indulgences. That is, carbon credits. Lucky for them, Al Gore just responded to Trump’s decision by announcing a clearance sale.

Is Geology Destiny?

I’m genuinely puzzled over why progressives find Trump’s decision so frightening. Are they still trapped in the barren, patriarchal paradigm of scientific “objectivity”? Still mired in biological determinism? If so, climate science is the only field where they feel so constrained. Let me invite them to free their minds. It’s time to break loose from the dictates of a male-dominated field that is led by privileged, highly educated, cis-gendered whites. Feminism, queer theory and transgenderism point the way.

We have already learned from these pioneering intellectual movements a long list of surprising and hopeful facts:

Male and female aren’t biological realities. They are mere social constructs. We can divide and subdivide, combine and conflate them, even shift them at a moment’s notice.

Women can father children.

Men can breastfeed and menstruate.

Human life begins at the moment a pregnant mom posts her ultrasound on Facebook.

Heterosexuality isn’t the default sexual behavior that describes mammalian breeding. It’s an artificial model, just like “maleness,” designed to constrain us and narrow our choices.

Age isn’t a biological marker, but another mental artifact. Hence adult men can become six-year-old girls.

A species is not just arbitrary and discriminatory (see “speciesism”). It is outright imaginary. Just ask the academic who turned himself into a hippo.

Now I’ve been out ahead of all this. Ten years ago, in a college guide I edited, I responded to the first transgender dorm demands at the University of Chicago. I called for facilities honoring the preferences of transspecies students. For instance, if any student identified as a lion, I called on the university to build him a suitable habitat. There he could live naked and subsist on raw wildebeest. They didn’t listen. I hope they’ll listen now.

How Hot Does the Climate Identify as Being?

If transgender theory can set us free from all those arbitrary categories, why can’t it save the climate? The gross raw material of biological sex gives way to the wishes of individuals. Bruce Jenner was already female even before the surgeon was finished with him. Likewise, the global temperature can be whatever we want it to be. If we decide as a global community to identify as a planet with a lower temperature, who can judge us? What privileged male in a starched lab coat dares tell us that the average earth temperature isn’t 57 degrees Fahrenheit, or even 72 degrees everywhere, if that’s what we want it to be? Why can’t we, like Spinal Tap, produce an amplifier that goes to 11?

The societal consensus of educated opinion has already freed us from biology. Shouldn’t climatology be next?

Transclimatism Is the New Frontier of Sexual Freedom

Now I know there will be skeptics. Hidebound traditionalists and fundamentalists are always trying to lock us in a straight jacket. Some will say that the rest of the planet won’t recognize our decision, that animals and plants will react not to the real temperature (the one we’ve decided on, democratically). No they’ll doggedly go on responding to the phony, “objective” warmth or coolness they feel around them.

Saying that, of course, is just buying in to climate determinism. It’s like insisting that “maleness” is linked to penises. And that’s already illegal in New York City. Do you want our climate policy to be guided by hate criminals? I didn’t think so. That kind of cis-thermalism has no place in a free society.

It may be that the earth in fact does keep on warming, in some trivial “external” sense. In that case, we are not left powerless victims. The transgender movement has made enormous advances in helping reshape the stubborn flesh to match the psychological truth of gender identity.

We can do the same with the planet. There are vastly promising areas of geoengineering that science has left untried. Options range from enormous shade pods floating in orbit to reduce the amount of sunlight that hits the earth, to seeding the upper atmosphere with reflective dust, to reflect our real, identified climate.

If we can use the best in medical science to help transgender people’s bodies match their authentic gender identity, why not do the same for the earth? “Nature” is what we say it is. That’s true for human ecology, so why not for the planet? (For more from the author of “Forget the Paris Accords: Climate Is Socially Constructed, Like Sex” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull out of the Paris Agreement

President Donald Trump has fulfilled a key campaign pledge, announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

The Paris Agreement, which committed the U.S. to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, was a truly bad deal—bad for American taxpayers, American energy companies, and every single American who depends on affordable, reliable energy.

It was also bad for the countries that remain in the agreement. Here are four reasons Trump was right to withdraw.

1. The Paris Agreement was costly and ineffective.

The Paris Agreement is highly costly and would do close to nil to address climate change.

If carried out, the energy regulations agreed to in Paris by the Obama administration would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing, and destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035.

In withdrawing from the agreement, Trump removed a massive barrier to achieving the 3 percent economic growth rates America is accustomed to.

Simply rolling back the Paris regulations isn’t enough. The Paris Agreement would have extended long beyond the Trump administration, so remaining in the agreement would have kept the U.S. subject to its terms.

Those terms require countries to update their commitments every five years to make them more ambitious, starting in 2020. Staying in the agreement would have prevented the U.S. from backsliding or even maintain the Obama administration’s initial commitment of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent.

The Obama administration made clear in its commitment that these cuts were only incremental, leading up to an eventual 80 percent cut in the future.

In terms of climate benefits produced by Paris, there are practically none.

Even if every country met its commitments—a big “if” considering China has already underreported its carbon dioxide emissions, and there are no repercussions for failing to meet the pledges—the changes in the earth’s temperature would be almost undetectable.

2. The agreement wasted taxpayer money.

In climate negotiations leading up to the Paris conference, participants called for a Green Climate Fund that would collect $100 billion per year by 2020.

The goal of this fund would be to subsidize green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programs in poorer nations—and to get buy-in (literally) from those poorer nations for the final Paris Agreement.

The Obama administration ended up shipping $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to this fund without authorization from Congress.

Some of the top recipients of these government-funded climate programs have in the past been some of the most corrupt, which means corrupt governments collect the funds, not those who actually need it.

No amount of transparency negotiated in the Paris Agreement is going to change this.

Free enterprise, the rule of law, and private property are the key ingredients for prosperity. These are the principles that actually will help people in developing countries prepare for and cope with a changing climate and natural disasters, whether or not they are caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Withdrawal is a demonstration of leadership.

The media is making a big to-do about the fact that the only countries not participating in the Paris Agreement are Syria and Nicaragua.

But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a bad deal. Misery loves company, including North Korea and Iran, who are signatories of the deal.

Some have argued that it is an embarrassment for the U.S. to cede leadership on global warming to countries like China. But to draw a moral equivalency between the U.S. and China on this issue is absurd.

China has serious air quality issues (not from carbon dioxide), and Beijing has repeatedly falsified its coal consumption and air monitoring data, even as it participated in the Paris Agreement. There is no environmental comparison between the U.S. and China.

Other countries have a multitude of security, economic, and diplomatic reasons to work with America to address issues of mutual concern. Withdrawal from the agreement will not change that.

Certainly, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will be met with consternation from foreign leaders, as was the case when the U.S. withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.

However, it could very well help future negotiations if other governments know that the U.S. is willing and able to resist diplomatic pressure in order to protect American interests.

4. Withdrawal is good for American energy competitiveness.

Some proponents of the Paris Agreement are saying that withdrawing presents a missed opportunity for energy companies. Others are saying that it doesn’t matter what Trump does because the momentum of green energy is too strong.

Neither argument is a compelling case for remaining in the agreement.

Whether it is conventional fuel companies or renewable ones, the best way for American energy companies to be competitive is to be innovative and competitive in the marketplace, not build their business models around international agreements.

There is nothing about leaving the agreement that prevents Americans from continuing to invest in new energy technologies.

The market for energy is $6 trillion and projected to grow by a third by 2040. Roughly 1.3 billion people do not yet have access to electricity, let alone reliable, affordable energy.

That’s a big market incentive for the private sector to pursue the next energy technology without the aid of taxpayer money.

The U.S. federal government and the international community should stop using other peoples’ money to subsidize energy technologies and while regulating affordable, reliable energy sources out of existence.

The Paris Agreement was the open door for future U.S. administrations to regulate and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on international climate programs, just as the Obama administration did without any input from Congress.

Now, that door has thankfully been shut. (For more from the author of “4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull out of the Paris Agreement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Where Is the Special Prosecutor for Hillary and Barack?

Every time I think we have plumbed the depths of stupidity among congressional Republicans, someone comes along to prove that we are so far from the bottom that we can’t even see it.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), supposedly an up-and-coming conservative “star” in the U.S. Senate, proudly announced that the Senate Intelligence Committee had voted to give itself “blanket authority to issue subpoenas” regarding the investigation into Russian election meddling. This means the Democrats have been granted unrestricted license to go after President Trump despite what is obviously a partisan witch hunt.

How could Republicans be so stupid? We have just barely survived eight years of unrestrained criminality by Obama, two successive attorneys general –Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch– who turned the Justice Department into an extremist partisan attack machine that stood the rule of law on its head. We also endured the shenanigans of serial criminal co-conspirator, Hillary Clinton, who gave Russia a 20 percent stake in U.S. weapons-grade uranium production and auctioned off her influence as secretary of state to the highest bidder.

Unlike the Trump/Russia fantasy, these are not mere allegations. There is proof of their criminality, real proof. Not just hearsay, not just anonymous sources “leaking” documents that no one has seen, and stories whose sources they won’t publicly disclose.

Judicial Watch’s Director of Investigations, Chris Farrell, recently posted a YouTube video that describes the unprecedented depth of this documented criminality by the Obama administration as reported on by the website Circa.

A recently declassified top secret court document from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court proves it. This is the court that decides what federal agencies can and cannot do in carrying out surveillance activities against foreigners when U.S. citizens are involved. The court lays out the issue:

On October 24, 2016, the government orally apprised the Court of significant non-compliance with the NSA’s minimization procedures involving queries of data acquired under Section 702 [of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ] using U.S. person identifiers.

In plain English, this refers to the Obama administration’s illegal preoccupation with surveillance of U.S. citizens. The court goes on:

Since 2011, NSA’s minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collections under Section 702. The Oct. 26, 2016 notice informed the court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court.

In other words, the Obama administration had been illegally identifying Americans and hiding the extent of its surveillance against them. At the Oct. 26 hearing, the court found that “the problem was widespread during all periods under review,” adding these activities present “a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”

The Circa article asserts, “the admitted violations undercut one of the primary defenses that the intelligence community and Obama officials have used in recent weeks to justify their snooping into incidental NSA intercepts about Americans.”

Farrell states that the Obama administration “has abused and misused the National Security Agency in a way no one ever even pondered before. This is the sort of stuff that would make Richard Nixon blush. It is beyond the pale. It’s like nothing else we’ve ever seen.”

Rand Paul was quoted in the Circa article, saying, “If we determine this to be true, this is an enormous abuse of power. This will dwarf all other stories… There are hundreds and hundreds of people.”

The ACLU weighed in, but blamed it all on the intelligence agencies without mentioning the Obama administration’s abuses. As noted by Circa, “newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to police itself and safeguard American’s privacy.” Typical of the Left, the ACLU uses these egregious abuses as an opportunity to discredit the NSA and others. But the ACLU should know it is never the bureaucrats who do this alone. They invariably are taking orders from their political bosses, in this case then President Obama.

We should have seen this coming. (Of course some of us did but the political class had its blinders on). Obama was overstepping his authority before he was even elected. In 2008, then presidential candidate Obama interfered with President Bush’s foreign policy by trying to talk Iraqis out of an agreement with Bush to keep U.S. forces in Iraq. As we now know, it was Obama’s reckless premature pullout from Iraq that returned the nation to anarchy – forcing us now to expend even more blood and treasure to help the Iraqis recapture it from ISIS. And what about Obama’s whispered promise to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that “after my election I have more flexibility.” Flexibility for what? To surrender even more of our missile defense capability?

What about that uranium deal?

Trump has repeatedly accused Hillary of giving “20 percent of America’s uranium supply to Russia.” Snopes and PolitiFact rate the assertion as false and mostly false. We know both of those organizations skew heavily left, especially Snopes, and go out of their way to protect the Clintons. So is it true or false?

It has been widely reported that the Clinton Foundation received $145 million after Hillary Clinton allowed Russia’s nuclear energy agency to purchase a controlling interest in Uranium One, a Canada-based company that mines uranium in states containing 20 percent of U.S. capacity. Snopes and company claim Hillary was not involved in the deal, that it was delegated to then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, and that the State Department is only one of nine agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) that decides such matters.

Regardless of who actually sat at the CFIUS table, Clinton is ultimately responsible for such decisions, and do you really think Fernandez would have made such a momentous decision without her blessing? Moreover, would the other agencies dare to vote against Hillary’s agency? Highly doubtful.

Hillary apologists also try to disassociate the Clinton Foundation’s string of receipts from Russia as though the two were entirely unrelated. Did they give the Clintons $145 million just for yucks? The New York Times, not exactly a bastion of conservatism, lays it out.

So I ask: where is the special prosecutor for Obama, Holder, Lynch and Clinton?

And what about all the leaks? Have any of those weak-kneed members of Congress used their substantial authority to compel the FBI and/or intelligence agencies to investigate and uncover the leakers? Unlike the unsubstantiated allegations about Trump, these are federal crimes.

If unproven allegations of Trump/Russian collusion in the 2016 elections are worthy of a special prosecutor, are the litany of Hillary’s activities not? These are events that actually occurred, not undocumented accusations by partisan Democrats. Ditto with Obama. If the flimsy allegations against Trump are worthy of a special prosecutor, Obama and Hillary’s crimes merit a treason prosecution. But will we even see a special prosecutor for them?

So in tribute to the many GOP imbeciles in Congress, I am starting a hashtag, #STUPIDPARTY. I hope you will use it in tweets to our illustrious Members of Congress and give them holy hell for joining Democrats in their overt effort to destroy this president and bring down his administration.

If the GOP keeps this up, we may well see the Democrats’ hoped-for midterm wave election that sweeps Republicans from power. (For more from the author of “Where Is the Special Prosecutor for Hillary and Barack?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Does Manchester Need a Concert With Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus and Katy Perry?

I assume the performers mean well. I assume they intend their concert to be an act of redemption and healing for the people of Manchester, England. But does this hurting city really need a performance featuring Ariana Grande, Katy Perry, and Miley Cyrus (among others)? Is this the best way to bring healing to these open wounds?

Before I go any farther, let me allow some of you (my critics) a moment to blast me. In fact, I’ll write out what you’re thinking to save you the trouble.

Perhaps it’s something like this: “Who in the _____ do you think you are? What gives you the right to tell the people of Manchester what’s best for them? It’s antiquated religious hypocrites like you who are messing up the world. So, go find a rock and hide under it, old man. We could care less what you have to say.”

Do you feel better now? Did that help you vent?

Good. Then let’s move on and try to have a fair-minded, heart-to-heart conversation. I mean to help, not hurt, to be constructive, not destructive.

Denouncing the Concert Attacker

Of course, whatever concert is or was held, however degraded or debased it might be or have been, it does not merit a terrorist attack. God forbid!

Even if the performers sang the vilest songs and had a corrupting effect on young people. Even if they mocked every religion on the planet. Even if their words and actions were deeply offensive, you don’t blow up their audience with a bomb. Never!

You don’t maim them. You don’t injure them. You don’t kill them. No, no, no, no. (Rather than write it out, I’ll just say “a thousand times no!”)

The suicide bomber was doing the devil’s work, not God’s work. There is no possible justification for his acts. What he did represents the worst of humanity and is hellish, not holy. It was horrific. It was barbaric. Every person of conscience, of every faith and non-faith, needs to denounce the act for what it was: a vile, cowardly act of mass murder.

Have I made myself clear?

The question now, is this: What would bring the most healing to the people of Manchester? What would help them rebuild their broken world, one life at a time?

Does Vulgarity Heal?

The Daily Mail reported that on June 4th, Ariana Grande will “join forces with Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus and a star-studded line-up at One Love Manchester benefit gig for victims of terror attack.”

Perhaps they’ll raise lots of money for the victims and their families. Perhaps they’ll infuse the community with vigor and energy. Perhaps they’ll shout to the world, “We will not be intimidated by violence and hatred!”

That’s all good and commendable. And, to repeat, I assume the performers mean well. They obviously have busy schedules and they’re coming together to say, “People of Manchester, we care about you.”

I get it, and I appreciate it.

It’s just that there’s something amiss with the whole picture.

Remember that Ariana Grande’s concert tour was called “Dangerous Woman.” As innocent as she may look, her songs are as vulgar as they come.

What Manchester needs is the beauty of love and the presence of true goodness
According to one post that was sent to me, “Ariana Grande’s ‘music’ is, very simply, pornography. EVERY SONG, and I do mean EVERY SONG has exactly the same theme: the physical, mechanical act of sex, including manual, oral and anal sodomy.”

Is this overstated? Perhaps. I haven’t read the lyrics to almost all her songs. And there is plenty about the rest of the post that I differ with, especially its tone. But the lyrics I have read are absolutely gross — that is, once their meaning was explained to me. As the Huffington Post reported, “The Meaning Of Ariana Grande’s ‘Side To Side’ Is Way More Sexual Than We Thought.”

To make matters worse, I’ve read that Grande’s target audience is pre-pubescent girls. As another article stated, “The 23-year-old’s most dedicated fans — largely made up of girls between the ages of eight and 18 — call themselves Arianators.”

Am I blaming these young girls for following stars like Grande? Certainly not. Most of them haven’t the slightest clue what she’s talking about.

Am I saying that the young girls and teenagers killed at her concert deserved it? To repeat: a thousand times no! As a father and grandfather, the very thought of this kind of violence makes me sick.

I’m simply stating that what Manchester needs most will not be found in a concert featuring the likes of Ariana Grande or Miley Cyrus (she of naked, wrecking ball fame) or Katy Perry (she of a recent cannibalistic-fetish video; the links are too vile to provide).

What Manchester Needs

What Manchester needs is hope from above.

What Manchester needs only the Lord can provide.

What Manchester needs is the beauty of love and the presence of true goodness, not a bunch of scantily-clad stars gyrating to sex-charged lyrics. And even if the benefit concert strikes a higher tone and the performers are on their best behavior, they are still not the ones the city needs to be looking to.

How wonderful it would be if the top worship bands of the nation came together for a night of worship and prayer. (Perhaps this is being planned as I write?)

How wonderful it would be if the Christian leaders of the region joined as one to declare a message of hope and redemption. (Perhaps this is being arranged as well?)

How wonderful it would be if the church of the city (and country) shouted out to their friends and neighbors, “God has a better way! In Jesus, you can find true life! Manchester, turn to Him!”

My assumption is that many Christian leaders and churches in the UK are seeking to do this very thing, and my prayer is that the message of the gospel would touch that wounded city and country, reaching the Muslim communities as well.

Surely that would do far more good for Manchester than Ariana, Miley, Katy, and friends. (And let’s pray for them too.)

Do you agree? (For more from the author of “Does Manchester Need a Concert With Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus and Katy Perry?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Happens When We Don’t Raise Kids to Become Adults

When I was little, mom would leave detailed lists of chores on the kitchen counter each summer morning for my siblings and me to complete before we could play baseball, ride bikes, or go swimming.

And when I arrived at college, basically everyone with whom I became friends, a group from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds, had also done real work growing up.

Not everyone had worked in the field like I had—most had spent summers in retail or taking orders at a fast-food place or sorting the mail or doing some other kind of grunt work at a local office—but it was at least a job with certain expectations and set hours.

I didn’t presume everyone was as gritty as Elda Sasse, but I knew that my siblings and I hoped we would one day prove as perseverant as she was—and I honestly believed that this was a universal aspiration.

Without deliberate reflection, I assumed that basically all young people everywhere had similar placeholder role models in their minds, and thus that the transmission of a work ethic to each next generation was more or less inevitable.

My passive assumption that all kids have some meaningful work experiences as teens was shattered in late 2009 when I arrived as president of Midland University.

The university’s board of directors had hired me, as a 37-year-old, not because I had any special insight into shaping 18- to 22-year-olds, but because I was a “turnaround” guy who specialized in helping troubled companies become solvent.

This liberal arts institution was in big trouble, in terms of both finances and enrollment, the latter at its lowest point in a century.

My job was to tackle the college’s unsustainable deficits, skyrocketing debt, enrollment shortfalls, and flagging morale among faculty and staff. None of my initial charter had anything to do with current students and their emotional health.

Immediately upon arrival, however, it became apparent that in addition to dealing with other so-called “big picture” concerns of a university in crisis, I would also have to reshape the student affairs leadership and structure.

When my team and I arrived at Midland, the school had been on the verge of missing payroll four months in a row, which would mean that families would miss mortgage payments. That’s a pretty urgent crisis.

Yet finances might not have been the biggest problem at the school.

More stunning to me was that it was an atypical experience for an incoming freshman to have done really hard work, not even the sorts of elementary farm tasks common to Nebraska kids from the homesteaders of the 1860s until just a few years ago.

Teenage life, I soon learned, had been stunningly remade in the two decades since I’d gone off to college. Elda’s and Elmer’s childhoods were far removed from these kids’ experiences and understanding.

Let’s be clear that there were many wonderful human beings and delightful students at Midland, but many of the teens I met upon arriving on campus also had an outsized sense of entitlement without any corresponding notion of accountability.

For example, a student staged a sit-in in my office one day, announcing that he would not leave until I resolved a scheduling problem for him. He was upset that the registrar wouldn’t be offering a particular course he needed the following semester.

Obviously, college presidents don’t usually solve the Rubik’s Cube of course scheduling.

The student was emphatic that he wasn’t leaving, and while I was clear that the course registrar had a job to do and that she did it well, I realized it might be a teachable moment, a chance for the student and me to have a conversation.

At one point he proclaimed, “You need to figure this out. I pay tuition to go to this school, which means I pay your salary. So you work for me.”

Well, ummm… no. That isn’t how it works at all. My job did include serving him, but in a defined way. It was not my job, for instance, to wash his car or fetch him pizza on Friday night.

I patiently explained that Midland exists for many people and many purposes; the board of directors hired me; and I serve at their pleasure—but that my leadership of the institution as a whole relies on my empowering a team of people to fulfill their specialized vocations.

I then gently pointed out to the student that he was attending the university on scholarship. In truth then, he worked for—or had a debt to—the generous donors who made his scholarship possible.

But even if he’d been paying for his education himself, the college is a living institution of partners, with thought-out, intentional divisions of labor.

He was approaching the situation and this whole living-learning-working community only as a consumer. He was not thinking or talking or acting like a maturing young man aware of the dignity of the work of the many other people in the equation.

During the five years I was president, we conducted surveys annually about the highs and lows of students’ university experience.

The survey takeaway that repeatedly woke me in the middle of the night was the aching sense not just that the students lacked a work ethic, but more fundamentally that they lacked an experiential understanding of the difference between production and consumption.

Dispiritingly, students overwhelmingly highlighted their desire for freedom from responsibilities. The activities they most enjoyed, they reported, were sleeping in, skipping class, and partying. A few mentioned canceled classes as the best part of their four years.

I too love a good Midwestern blizzard, but I loved them in college so that we could explore the beauty, or ski, or snowmobile—rather than merely be free from class.

Almost nowhere did the student surveys reveal that they had the eyes to see freedom to categories—to read, to learn, to be coached, to be mentored in an internship.

If you have done any real work, you begin to see a broad range of work differently. And if you’ve been reflective about your and other people’s work, you start to ask questions about where goods and services come from.

Who did the work that got these non-Nebraska items to this store in this Nebraska small town?

As hard work is baked into your bones, you begin to feel great gratitude for the other workers who built the stuff and plotted the distribution system that got these toasters and sneakers and books to this place.

On the other hand, if you’ve never worked, you are more likely blind to the fundamental distinction between production and consumption. And these students, I learned from interviewing many of them, had mostly not done any hard work prior to arriving in college.

Although it is not universally fair, millennials have acquired a collective reputation as needy, undisciplined, coddled, presumptuous, and lacking much of a filter between their public personas and their inner lives.

As one New York Times story about millennials in the workplace put it, managers struggle with their young employees’ “sense of entitlement, a tendency to overshare on social media, and frankness verging on insubordination.”

“Well, what’s the alternative? Are you asking us to be fake?” one young woman asked me after a speech in which I’d made a passing comment about the virtues of “deferred gratification.”

No, of course not. Of course we all struggle with selfishness, and of course there are times to simply have fun, avoid responsibility, and seek escape—or perhaps, as noted in the last chapter, to pause the daily churn to reflect.

But growing up involves coming to recognize the distinction between who we still are today and who we seek to become. Our hope is that our young people will begin to own the Augustinian awareness that not everything we long or lust for is something we should really want.

Healthy people can admit that there are unhealthy yearnings. It is not “fake” to aim to mature. And it is not fake to begin modeling the desired behavior even before it is a full and fair representation of who you are in the moment.

I remain selfish and impatient today, but it is surely not fake or wrong to seek to sublimate these traits. I want to grow beyond who I am today, and I aim to begin better modeling that idealized future right now. (For more from the author of “What Happens When We Don’t Raise Kids to Become Adults” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Does Kathy Griffin Want to Join ISIS?

These are confusing times. If there’s a memo which explains what it’s safe to think and say nowadays, I didn’t get it. Neither may have many of you. So I decided to write one, which lays out the basic, unquestionable facts of life in 2017:

Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say otherwise, Muslims will kill you.

Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism. Don’t deny that, you’ll just provoke them!

Feminism is for female empowerment. Except when it runs interference for polygamous sheiks who favor female genital mutilation and the torture of rape victims. But, on everything else, it’s solid.

The left supports equality and opposes all exclusion. Except when they want all-female movie screenings and all-black dorms. But your Christian college had better have a gay activist group on campus, or else.

Liberals favor freedom. Except when you offend them, they’ll try to wreck your career and maybe put you in prison.

Progressives want democracy. But if you elect someone they disapprove of, they will fantasize about overthrowing the government, removing the president over fake scandals, or just outright murdering the guy.

We learned the last item on this list first from Rosie O’Donnell, who greeted the inauguration of Donald Trump by calling for a military coup, as we reported here at The Stream.

Kathy Griffin Auditions for ISIS

But we didn’t really know what it meant until today, when comedienne Kathy Griffin released an ISIS-style beheading selfie. She was holding the blood-soaked head of the president of the United States by the hair.

What can we really say to this? It’s probably illegal, but it’s doubtful that the feds will prosecute her. That’s exactly what she’s hoping will happen, to make her a martyr for free speech or something. Because it’s okay to urge violence against the president. That’s completely covered by the First Amendment. What isn’t covered is teaching divergent political opinions in college courses. Because that could “trigger” students and make them feel unsafe.

You know who should be most offended by Griffin’s stunt? Not Donald Trump. Not even his voters, though Griffin is proving her scorn for half of America. The half that has never heard of her, by the way. Those who should be most upset, I’d say were the survivors of ISIS’s actual victims. You know, the Christians who were in fact beheaded by the group whom Obama dismissed as the “JV team” of terror. And the families of anyone else who was beheaded by terrorists. John Podhoretz pointed this out on Twitter:

To the survivors of those who died in this particularly gruesome way, this stunt is just as funny as those sick Alt-Right cartoons picturing American Jews in ovens. Both were equally squalid and stupid.

That Moment in the Exorcism

Is there something deep and dark in the soul of the cultural left that is finally crawling out to see the light of day?

When Katy Perry isn’t mindlessly calling for peace love and brotherhood as the answer to Muslim slaughter bombings of schoolgirls, she’s releasing cannibalistic fetish videos [WARNING: Vile, graphic content].

When Planned Parenthood isn’t telling pregnant women who want pre-natal care to go look for it on Google, its representatives are joking about the butchered parts of babies. It doesn’t seem too far-fetched to say of our culture that this is the moment in the exorcism when the head starts to spin around. How ironic is it that “baby-Christian” Donald Trump was the man who has provoked all this! God works in funny ways.

The Left’s Campaign of Terror

Or maybe it’s not demonic. Wielding Occam’s Razor, we don’t absolutely need a preternatural explanation for the devilish ways of the left. There’s political theory here that could go some way toward explaining what we see. The left was savagely disappointed in the defeat of Hillary Clinton. They saw her chance to pack the courts and spur the federal Leviathan as a golden opportunity to silence Christians forever — while flooding the country with new natural Democratic voters. They came so achingly close to sealing the deal that they can taste it. So they flail around for scapegoats:

James Comey sandbagged us.

Half of Americans are racists.

The Russians hacked Vermont’s voting machines.

The Russians hacked our brains using Wikileaks.

Unable to contain their impotent rage, many leftists have decided on a course of “resistance.” That means pulling out every stop, breaking every rule, abandoning every previous standard of decency. The goal? To create or simulate a national crisis, and call into question the legitimacy of our government. Political scientist Thomas Molnar called such a strategy “cultural terrorism.” See my January column explaining this theory in detail.

The power of this strategy is that it feeds on our very outrage. The more people who thunder about Kathy Griffin’s vile stunt, the better she likes it (though of course she’ll officially apologize). She and her allies want to produce division, rage, and extremist counter-stunts. That helps bring on the crisis in which they believe they will be the winners.

Much better, I think, to meet this desperate cry for Botox on the part of a D-list celebrity with the emotion it truly deserves. Good, healthy scorn. Along those lines, my favorite reaction to Griffin was that of provocateur Gavin Macinnes:

The devil can bear many things. He can’t abide being mocked. So said St. Thomas More. (For more from the author of “Does Kathy Griffin Want to Join ISIS?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.