Mitch McConnell FINALLY Served a Purpose for GOP/Conservatives

/0 Comments/in , , /by

First, let me this out of the way straight away — this is not a joke.

I swear it.

I have to begin with that caveat because those of you who regularly listen to my show, or read my column, would likely believe I was engaging in grade A trolling had I not. Or you might suspect I’ve gone mad as a hatter. For what I’m about to say undeniably goes against my default setting where the senior senator from the commonwealth of Kentucky is concerned.

Yes, that would be Mitch McConnell R-Ky. (F, 40%). Or “Ditch” as I once coined him long ago for being the chief playwright of what became known as “failure theater.” The man whose relationship with conservatives has been, well, complicated, to be kind. But today is no time to dwell on the past. Today is a time for giving credit where credit is due.

So here it is, Mitch McConnell, and again, I mean this in all seriousness: thank you. (Editor’s note: we disagree. McConnell is a snake and, although he’ll occasionally throw us a bone, is absolutely unredeemable. You can bet your last dollar that anything McConnell does that is “conservative” either was already going to happen or helps advance his own crony-capitalist interests; he is despicable, largely responsible for the disastrous state our nation is in)

It was you who stood in the breach after President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia following his death last February. That left nearly a year before a new president would be sworn in. In fact, Garland’s name ultimately was entered into nomination for more than twice as long as any Supreme Court nominee that came before him.

“Obstruction,” the Democrats cried. And they continue to do so now as they prepare to torpedo President Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch to replace Scalia.

But when the real obstruction has been decades upon decades of judicial usurpations of the legislative process, McConnell sat down at the high stakes poker table and played a stone-cold hand. He bet he would get just the jackpot he needed when that river card was flipped. A “Trump card” if you will.

So now here we are, with a chance to at least hold the line on the Supreme Court, and perhaps even set the stage for a return to something resembling the jurisprudence of our Founding Fathers. And now if you’re one of those applauding the Gorsuch appointment, you owe McConnell a doth of the cap as well.

That’s not to say McConnell and conservatives are suddenly bosom buddies. There’s still a lot of water under that bridge. Still, the importance of what the Senate Majority Leader did here cannot be understated, and had he not done it the possibility exists the ideological balance of the nation’s highest court could’ve been generationally impacted.

Ronald Reagan once famously had a plaque with the following words inscribed on it in the oval office: “It’s amazing what you can do when you don’t care who gets the credit for it.” In that spirit, if Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. (F, 30%) can stand shoulder-to-shoulder on MSNBC when they share common ground, we can thank McConnell for standing shoulder-to-shoulder with us here.

This time DC did listen to us, and we should acknowledge when that happens at least as much as we do when it doesn’t. Here’s to hoping this is the start of a trend.

Thanks again, Mitch. (For more from the author of “Mitch McConnell FINALLY Served a Purpose for GOP/Conservatives” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

EXPLOSIVE: Soros Group Funded Numerous Republicans Proving DC Has but One Party

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Employees of a hedge fund founded by the king of the Institutional Left, billionaire and Democratic Party mega-donor George Soros, donated tens of thousands of dollars to top Republicans who fought against President Donald Trump in 2016, donation records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show.

Soros Fund Management, a former hedge fund that serves now as an investment management firm, was founded by progressive billionaire George Soros in 1969. It has risen to become one of the most profitable hedge funds in the industry. Employees of the firm are heavily involved in backing political candidates giving millions upon millions to groups that were supporting failed 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton for the presidency.

But more importantly, perhaps, than the unsurprising giant lump sums of cash funneled into Democratic Party and Clinton coffers is the revelation thanks to the Center for Responsive Politics that employees of the Soros firm—now run by his son Robert Soros—pumped tens of thousands of dollars into the campaigns of top anti-Trump Republicans over the course of 2016. . .

[I]t is significant that Soros executives are making a play inside the GOP. Perhaps even more significant is the type of Republican they aim to prop up: pro-amnesty, pro-open borders on trade, and generally speaking anti-Trump. A pattern emerges when looking at the policies of the Republicans that these Soros Fund Management executives support financially.

The biggest recipient of Soros-connected cash in the GOP was none other than House Speaker Paul Ryan, who repeatedly attempted to undermine Trump over the course of the election. According to the records available online, the Soros firm’s workers gave $10,800 to Ryan. Included in that are two separate May 2, 2016, donations from David Rogers, a then-employee of Soros Fund Management who lives in New York City. Rogers left the Soros Fund Management firm right around that time. (Read more from “EXPLOSIVE: Soros Group Funded Numerous Republicans Proving DC Has but One Party” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Patriots Didn’t Just Beat the Falcons. They Crushed the Liberal Media

/0 Comments/in , , /by

History was made Sunday night when the New England Patriots came back from a 21–3 halftime deficit in Super Bowl 51 to pull an historic and stunning overtime victory, defeating the Atlanta Falcons 34 to 28.

Patriots fans are understandably exuberant. Atlanta fans are beyond dejected. And the liberal media is eating crow.

You see, prior to the game, the liberal media had determined that quarterback Tom Brady’s friendship with Donald Trump made it unacceptable to root for the Patriots, unless of course you are a bigoted, racist, homophobic deplorable.

On Feb. 1, The New York Times ran an expose on “The uncomfortable love affair between Donald Trump and the New England Patriots.” The piece attempted to shame the Patriots by pointing out the team’s ties to the president and noted that “no small number of fans are convinced that the Patriots (like Trump) achieve their victories through dubious means and wish they would just go away and get off their TVs forever.”

The New York Daily News praised Bill Maher for an “epic rant” in which the progressive comedian and host of “Real Time with Bill Maher” went on a profanity-laced tirade declaring his opposition to a Patriots’ victory.

“The Falcons are playing a team where the owner, the coach and the star quarterback all love Donald Trump,” said Maher. “So I’d really like for them to lose by a score of a million f–king thousand to none.”

The Los Angeles Times ran an op-ed by sports documentary producer Kelly Candaele declaring his support for the Falcons on the basis of the “loathsome politics” of Tom Brady, Bill Belichick, and Robert Kraft.

SB Nation brought up the controversy between President Trump and Congressman John Lewis, D-Ga. (F, 22%) — who represents part of Atlanta — declaring the Super Bowl was “Donald Trump vs. the city of Atlanta.”

Slate even ran an explainer titled “How to pull for the Patriots in the Age of Trump.” But look closely at the URL on that piece and you’ll see an alternative headline poses a moral quandary to Slate’s audience: “Is it morally acceptable to root for the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl?”

One of the big moral questions Slate tackles is: “Is it cool to like a football team because its owner and some of its players like a politician I disagree with?” Truly the philosophical question for the times we live in.

A less philosophical individual called for a “boycott” of the Patriots way back in November.

For a while, it looked like the Falcons were indeed going to crush the Patriots. And progressive Twitter couldn’t have been happier.

And then, in an uncanny election night parallel, things began to turn around on the liberals. With a strip-sack, a miracle catch, and a tenacious drive by Tom Brady, the Pats turned the game around for the win in overtime.

Things were looking a lot like Election Night.

The annoying liberals rooting for a Patriots defeat, they were all wrong.

But the best reaction to the Patriots win is captured with one deleted tweet.

Eat crow, lefties.

Eat. Crow. (For more from the author of “The Patriots Didn’t Just Beat the Falcons. They Crushed the Liberal Media” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

NOAA Whistleblower Claims Data Were ‘Adjusted’ to Make Global Warming Seem Worse

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A scientist-whistleblower has accused the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of diddling with temperature data, adjusting it so that it better accorded with political desires.

The Daily Mail is reporting that Dr John Bates, a now-retired climate data expert, late of the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), a branch of NOAA, claimed the agency “breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.”

Bates said that Thomas Karl, who was until recently the director of NCEI, was “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation … in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy” (ellipsis original).

The data, Bates claimed, was never “subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process.” When Bates complained, “His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.”

Karl and eight others authored the “Pausebuster” paper, “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus.” It reported “an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades” and which claimed “These results do not support the notion of a ‘slowdown’ in the increase of global surface temperature.”

The “slowdown,” or rather the non-increase in global temperatures for almost two decades, was notable in satellite data. It was also noticed in surface-based data, until that data was statistically adjusted by Karl and others. These adjustments of surface records, which are not uncommon, are also curious. It usually happens that older data are lowered, and recent data pushed higher, making it appear that temperatures are increasing. Are these adjustments legitimate, or the result of confirmation bias, or potentially fraudulent?

How dramatic are the adjustments? As the Daily Mail reports, “The Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was actually higher, at 0.116C per decade.”

This is three-thousandths of a degree higher. Three-thousandths. To appreciate the magnitude, it helps to say it aloud: three-thousandths of a degree. And not just three-thousandths of a degree, but three-thousandths of a degree per every ten years. If panic at the news of higher temperatures was your first reaction, ensure it is panic in slow motion.

The global rate is the product of land and sea measurements. On the sea adjustments, “Thomas Karl and his colleagues … tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade — as stated in version 3 — to 0.099C per decade.”

Even assuming this correction is valid, the final result is only a tenth of a degree a decade. If the global sea temperature really is caused to act like a straight upwards line, which is physically extremely doubtful, then after ten years, the temperature at sea will be one-tenth of a degree (on average) warmer than previously thought. Make that panic super-slow motion.

But even then, it’s not likely the correction is right.

But Dr. Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source — water taken in by ships. This, Dr. Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden — so affecting temperature readings.

Bates said, “They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships.”

Similar statistical manipulations were done to land-temperature data, with adjustments being of the same low level. Bates not only questioned the timing and direction of adjustments, but said the programs used to make them were “highly experimental” and “afflicted by serious bugs.”

Karl “admitted” to the Daily Mail that “the data had not been archived when the paper was published,” making replication by colleagues impossible or difficult. Karl also said “the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the [data] would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.”

Even assuming all is aboveboard, what most don’t realize is that surface temperature measurements are not static; they change year to year. These changes induce uncertainty, which has so far been badly underestimated. This is why claims of thousandths of a degree change are, at best, dubious, and are more likely subject to large uncertainties. (For more from the author of “NOAA Whistleblower Claims Data Were ‘Adjusted’ to Make Global Warming Seem Worse” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former Muslim Refugee: Think ‘Rationally’ About Dangers of Radical Islam

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A former Muslim refugee is asking her fellow American citizens to think “rationally” about the dangers of radical Islam.

“I know what it’s like to fear rejection, deportation and the dangers that await you back home,” Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim of Somali origin, writes in the Huffington Post.

Ali writes that she became an American citizen after escaping an arranged marriage and working in the Netherlands at a factory and as an interpreter for abused Muslim women. Overtime, she says she made the decision to leave the religion of Islam because it was “too intolerant of free thought.”

She was “excited” when she heard Trump’s August 2016 speech about combatting the underlying ideology of radical Islam which oppresses women, the LGBT community and other religions. She was also encouraged by his promise to help moderate Muslims who strove to combat radicalism.

Four Types of Muslim Immigrants

“In the course of working with Muslim communities over the past two decades, I have come to distinguish between four types of Muslim immigrants: adapters, menaces, coasters and fanatics,” Ali says.

The adapters are those who adapt to the customs and embrace the freedoms of Western civilization; menaces are often young men who are subject to and then commit crimes of domestic violence; coasters are those who want to take advantage of welfare without working; and fanatics “use the freedoms of the countries that gave them sanctuary to spread an uncompromising practice of Islam.”

Ali writes that some people move from one category to the other over time, which makes it more difficult to distinguish between adapters and troublemakers.

“[T]he problem of Islamist terrorism will not be solved by immigration controls and extreme vetting alone,” she writes. “That’s because the problem is already inside our borders.”

Ali cites surveys which reveal majorities of Sharia-supporting Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Iraq — whence most Muslim immigrants are expected to come to the U.S. in the coming decades — agree with the death penalty for those who leave Islam.

Ali writes:

Such attitudes imply a readiness to turn a blind eye to the use of violence and intimidation tactics against, say, apostates and dissidents — and a clear aversion to the hard-won achievements of Western feminists and campaigners for minority rights. Admitting individuals with such views is not in the American national interest.

While Ali says she was disappointed in the clumsy implementation of Trump’s temporary travel ban, she still supports the president’s longterm plan of rejecting any would-be immigrants who support terrorist groups or believe in Sharia law over the Constitution.

“American citizens — including immigrants — must be protected from that ideology and the violence that it promotes,” she writes. “But the threat is too multifaceted to be dealt with by executive orders. That is why Trump was right to argue in August for a commission of some kind — I would favor congressional hearings — to establish the full magnitude and nature of the threat.”

“Until we recognize that this ideology is already in our midst, we shall expend all our energies in feverish debates about executive orders, when what is needed is cool, comprehensive legislation,” Ali writes. (For more from the author of “Former Muslim Refugee: Think ‘Rationally’ About Dangers of Radical Islam” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Starbucks Gets Scalded in Backlash After CEO Criticizes Trump’s Travel Ban EO

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is harming shareholders by damaging the brand he globalized by criticizing President Trump’s executive order on Syrian refugees and travel bans.

Schultz wrote to Starbucks employees on Sunday, January 29, following Trump’s announcement on the previous Friday. The coffee chain CEO issued a broad-based attack against Trump.

The company’s share price has dropped lower (about four percent) following a disappointing earnings announcement and sank deeper (about 3.7 percent) following Schultz’s letter to employees that slammed Trump’s policies.

Schultz’s action serves as a warning to investors that they need to be aware of the CEO’s personal politics and whether the chief executive will create an unnecessary controversy by expressing those views.

Judging by the timing, Schultz let his progressive heart guide a hasty, emotional reaction, ignoring the predictable response by Trump supporters.

His letter said the American Dream is “being called into question” and claimed he was hearing from employees “that the civility and human rights we have all taken for granted for so long are under attack.”

Unleashing his frustration over the new president, Schultz discussed company actions challenging policies that are near and dear to Trump’s supporters.

Schultz expressed actions he is taking to support the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and mentioned Starbucks employees are “Dreamers.”

He touted the company’s history of hiring refugees and said Starbucks would be “doubling down” on this effort with “plans to hire 10,000 of them over five years in the 75 countries around the world where Starbucks does business.” As part of this effort in the U.S., he wants to employ refugees that support our armed forces.

Under the heading of “Building Bridges, Not Walls, With Mexico,” Schultz discussed the company’s investment in the country, adding the company would support Mexicans affected by trade and restrictions on immigration.

Finally, Schultz said eligible employees would have access to a company health care plan if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.

The response to Schultz’s letter was prompt and brutal on social media with posts calling for a boycott.

Facebook posts slammed Starbucks for its intention to hire refugees over American workers and U.S veterans.

Twitter rocked the company as well. Fortune reported #BoycottStarbucks was the top trending topic on Twitter the day after the Schultz letter.

Social media also distributed derogatory cartoons including a Starbucks store rebranded as “ShariaBucks” with a banner “Now Hiring: Muslim Refugees.”

Starbucks responded to the social media onslaught by emphasizing the company has a policy that encourages hiring veterans and active duty spouses.

Despite the company’s effort to respond to critics, its brand is damaged. The social media blitz and news stories labeled Starbucks as putting refugees before veterans.

Starbucks shareholders are paying the price because of Schultz’s inexcusable self-inflicted wound.

You don’t need to have a Ph.D. in political science to realize political passions are running extremely high, and no good can come from taking a position that conflicts with “America first.”

Like many on the Left, Schultz failed to recognize the mood of the country and the political land mines for not thinking about the consequences of his actions.

Schultz’s fumble exposes a management liability at progressive companies. While Starbucks touts diversity as a core value, the celebration of differences doesn’t apply to political thought. In many companies, conservatives are either absent or treated like social pariahs.

Starbucks is especially vulnerable to consumer backlash. First, Schultz previously used his company as his personal political soapbox. He has commented on race and told gun owners not to carry in their stores.

He also told a shareholder to sell his shares because the individual thought Starbucks’ support of a gay marriage referendum in Washington was bad for business.

Unlike Silicon Valley companies that expressed opposition to Trump’s executive order, Starbucks is a consumer product company with viable competing coffee alternatives on almost every corner.

Other progressive CEOs with vulnerable consumer brands have exercised restraint and not exposed their companies to backlash from Trump supporters.

After making a critical comment about Trump following the election, PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi — a Hillary Clinton supporter — quickly recovered. She joined the president’s group of business leaders, the Strategic and Policy Forum.

Similarly, Disney CEO Bob Iger, a long-time backer of Hillary Clinton, also joined Trump’s business group.

Nooyi and Iger’s decision to join the Trump Train is recognition that they are putting shareholders before their personal politics.

Starbucks shareholders wish Schultz would do the same. (For more from the author of “Starbucks Gets Scalded in Backlash After CEO Criticizes Trump’s Travel Ban EO” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Four Chaplains Who Went Down With the Ship

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Had the men obeyed the captain’s order, more would have survived that night.

On February 2, 1943, 902 servicemen, merchant seamen and civilian workers sailed on the United States Army Transport (USAT) Dorchester from New York on their way to Greenland. Most were 18 and 19-years-old. A Coast Guard cutter picked up sonar evidence of a German U-boat below. The captain ordered that the men sleep in their clothes and life jackets.

Many of the men chose to sleep without the life jackets or day clothes as ordered, perhaps because they were uncomfortable. At 12:55 a.m. on February 3, 1943, a U-boat torpedoed the Dorchester, knocking out its electrical system. In the chaos, men ran for their lives, some of them still in their underwear, leaving behind warm clothing in the near-freezing temperatures.

One man, while trying to retrieve his gloves, was stopped by one of the ship’s four chaplains, Rabbi Alexander Goode. “Never mind,” Rabbi Goode said, “I have two pairs.” Later, he realized that Rabbi Goode did not have another pair of gloves and that he’d decided to stay with the Dorchester as she sank.

The Chaplains On the Sinking Ship

The chaplains — Rabbi Goode, Methodist minister George Fox, Catholic priest John Washington, and Dutch Reformed pastor Clark Poling — were new to their jobs and were being taken to their assignment. They walked around the evening before the disaster, reminding men to sleep in their clothes and life jackets. They handed out crackers and comforted those who were seasick.

The four decided to hold a variety show to ease the tension. The men put on a musical review featuring the chaplains, all of whom could sing very well and loved to perform. Later, when most of the sailers were asleep, the torpedo hit.

The chaplains ran to the deck. One opened a storage locker on the ship’s deck and the four began distributing life jackets. They comforted the men on the ship, offered encouragement for the living and prayed for the dying. Survivors later reported hearing prayers in Hebrew, Latin and English.

When the life jackets ran out, the four gave their own jackets to the men. “It was the finest thing I have seen or hope to see this side of heaven,” said John Ladd, a survivor. After helping men into lifeboats, the chaplains linked arms, braced themselves against the listing deck and, as they sang hymns, went down with the ship.

One survivor, Grady Clark, said, “As I swam away from the ship, I looked back. The flares had lighted everything. The bow came up high and she slid under. The last thing I saw, the four chaplains were up there praying for the safety of the men. They had done everything they could. I did not see them again. They themselves did not have a chance without their life jackets.”

That cold, winter night 672 men perished by the torpedo and in the freezing water. The 230 survivors had been plucked out of the sea by two of the three Coast Guard cutters.

A Light in the World’s Darkness

Almost two years later, the four chaplains were posthumously awarded the Purple Heart and the Distinguished Service Cross for their selfless service and ultimate sacrifice that night.

President Harry S. Truman honored the chaplains on February 3, 1951, when he dedicated The Chapel of the Four Chaplains, now located in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Navy yard. Congress couldn’t give them the Medal of Honor because it could only be given for acts of heroism under fire. Their acts of heroism took place after the torpedo. Congress decided to bestow a special medal on the chaplains.

On January 18, 1961, President Eisenhower awarded them “The Four Chaplains Medal.” In 1988, Congress established February 3 as an annual “Four Chaplains Day.”

On that dark and cold night, in the middle of a horrifyingly tragic event, four chaplains of different faiths and denominations stood in unity as a model of John 15:13: Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

They showed love to the men on the Dorchester, and gave their lives so that others could live. May we be as bold if the moment comes when we are called to lay our lives down for others and show the love of Christ that will resonate for generations. (For more from the author of “The Four Chaplains Who Went Down With the Ship” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Leftist, Big Spending Lisa Murkowski Hypocritically Attacks Trump’s Border Wall Because of Deficit

/2 Comments/in , , /by

In an incredibly brazen attack on President Trump today, Alaska’s Senator Lisa Murkowski pledges his border wall will never get through Congress. Why? Because it will add to the deficit:

“If you’re going to spend that kind of money, you’re going to have to show me where you’re going to get that money,” Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski told CNN. “I don’t see how you can get a bill like that through [Congress] without offsets. I don’t see how that’s possible.”

Of course, Murkowski has never seen a debt ceiling increase she hasn’t embraced. For her, any problems with the budget have to do with why more money is not being spent, not less. Although she is the biggest Senate liberal on the RINO side, save Susan Collins, Murkowski is probably the biggest advocate for spending among Republicans. Her crony-capitalist handlers depend on the billions she directs their way and – in exchange – they manipulate Alaska’s elections for her.

Moreover, Murkowski may be way over her head on this one. To think she can actually run the numbers on the deficit – after failing the Alaska Bar exam five times – is a big question. Basic logical skills seem to elude her.

Unsurprisingly, big-spender Murkowski has never received a majority of Alaskan votes. Joe Miller’s two challenges, including one in which Murkowski was defeated in the primary, reflect that most Alaskans reject her style of politics. But, as long as her good friend and former campaign co-chair controls the corrupt voting system in Alaska, she will remain a fixture in the U.S. Senate.

If President Trump wants to do something about Lisa Murkowski, he should follow through on his commitment to review vote integrity issues in America, starting with Alaska’s dirty system. Otherwise, we can count on another six years of hypocrisy, corruption, and down-right stupidity from our senior senator.

Did Obama Just Hack President Trump’s Statement on Israel?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The final major policy fight of Obama’s presidency was his public dispute with Israel over their right to build homes in their biblical homeland. The country was rightly appalled that Obama and then-Secretary of State John Kerry chose to focus on a few thousand Jewish homes in the foothills of ancient Samaria at a time when Islamic mayhem is breaking out all over Western Civilization. In many respects, this parting shot from Obama epitomized the moral dyslexia of his entire presidency.

At the time, conservatives and even some intellectually honest liberals breathed a sigh of relief that a new a president would soon be welcomed — one who stopped condemning our ally as a way of apologizing to the Islamic world. We thought we could finally break away from the global elite’s maniacal obsession with the illogical and incoherent distraction of the two-state solution and focus on the root problem: Islamic supremacism.

Thus, naturally, this statement from the Trump White House was shocking:

The American desire for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians has remained unchanged for 50 years. While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal. As the President has expressed many times, he hopes to achieve peace throughout the Middle East region. The Trump administration has not taken an official position on settlement activity and looks forward to continuing discussions, including with Prime Minister Netanyahu when he visits with President Trump later this month.

At first I thought this was a hoax, or that it was drafted by an Obama holdover.

Some might suggest that at least Trump’s White House put some distance between this administration and his predecessor by recognizing some right for Jews to live in part of Judea and Samaria.

Really folks? Is this the soft bigotry of low expectations? Are we aiming for pale pastels, haggling over a few inches in an area virtually invisible on a map compared to the mass of land controlled by Islam? At a time when the entire premise of this two-state solution has been countermanded by reality, are we going to continue the same failed recognition of the PLO terrorists the way Clinton, Bush, and Obama did?

What exactly does it mean to “achieve peace” and why is the creation of a 23rd Arab state in our best interest? Why should we continue to invest our diplomatic capital into the foreign policy version of Obamacare? I spent the entire week robustly defending Trump’s immigration policy from a legal, political, historical, and philosophical perspective precisely because we don’t want to endanger our land with Islamic supremacism. Why is the Trump White House asking Israel to do something he wouldn’t want to do himself?

Moreover, this is the very stupidity that embodies the anger people felt against the political establishment and why they voted for Trump. While on the campaign trail, President Trump boldly decried the “stupid” politicians who are “pathetic losers” and perpetuate failed policies that are devoid of common sense. There is nothing that better fits this description than the globalist elite obsession with creating a PLO terror state west of the Jordan River; one which will become saturated with ISIS and Al Qaeda elements within days.

The two-state solution is the Obamacare of foreign policy. Much like Obamacare has locked up our economy and job market on the domestic front, the PLO nonsense has paralyzed our leverage in the Middle East and has consumed our foreign policy for 23 years. It is rooted in an apologetic concession to Islam instead of confronting the reality of Sharia-based Islam. Now, Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood know that any time they want to leverage Trump into making a concession, they will call upon Hamas and the PLO to ratchet up attacks on Israel and criticize the presence of Jews in Jewish territory. We have lost our leverage now that they know we “fear the Arab street” as it relates to moving the embassy and our ally building homes wherever they damn please.

What happened to the tough negotiator? Is this coming from his meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan today? A tough negotiator would tell Abdullah, “listen buddy, you create an Arab terror state on your western border and your country will fall to the Islamists within weeks. We won’t be there to save you.” Jordan would be just as adversely affected by such a dumb move as Israel.

Finally, there is a background here that is probably missed in the media. The reason Israel announced more construction in Samaria today is because, thanks to Israel’s crazy Supreme Court [Robert Bork wrote a lot about it during his lifetime], the Israeli government just dismantled an entire community of Jews in a town called Amona and sent their own army in to kick out their own families who have been living there for 20 years. This is something, to my knowledge, no other nation has done in history. So the building of more homes was somewhat of a domestic compromise for kicking those people out. For the Trump administration to then issue a statement on the same day and rip that wound wide open is appalling to the many religious Christians and Jews who so enthusiastically supported him on the premise that he wouldn’t follow such policies.

The bottom line is there was absolutely no reason to even focus on this issue at a time like this or issue any such statement. Silence in the face of Israel building homes would have been the refreshing change we all expected.

It’s disappointing that Trump is willing to get us sucked into the foreign policy cause célèbre of the very political establishment he claims to detest. On the one hand, he (rightfully) proclaims that our political leaders have been stupid to try to create democracy in the Middle East among existing Arab nations. Yet at the same time, he is willing to expend American capital creating a new Arab state that hates America, exports terrorism, destabilize the region, strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood, and will become a client-state of Iran?

We know you are better than this, Mr. President. Return to the inner voice of common sense and ignore the foreign policy elites. (For more from the author of “Did Obama Just Hack President Trump’s Statement on Israel?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Oops! Nancy Pelosi Accidentally Makes the Case for Trump’s Immigration Executive Order

/0 Comments/in , , /by

On Tuesday night, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. (F-10%) accidentally made a strong case for President Donald Trump’s executive order instructing the Department of Homeland Security to keep tabs on crime committed by illegal immigrants.

Laura Wilkerson, a Texas mothe whose son was “tortured,” “tied up like and animal,” and killed by an illegal alien, grilled Pelosi on her unabashed support of sanctuary cities:

“I am not a one-story mother. This happens every day because there are no laws enforcing the border,” Wilkerson said, as reported by the Washington Examiner. “How do you reconcile in your head about allowing people to disavow the law?”

Wilkerson continued:

“The second part of my question is this: if you need to go home tonight and line up your babies as you say, and your grandbabies, which one of them could you look in their eyes today, and tell them that they’re expendable for another foreign person to have a nicer life? Which one would you look to say, you, my child, are expendable for someone else to come over here and not follow the law.”

Pelosi, clearly bewildered by the mother’s impassioned testimony, offered a weak response, thanking Wilkerson for “channeling [her] energy to help prevent something like that from happening.” She then claimed that “our people [i.e. illegals] are not disobeying the law” in sanctuary cities.

“These are, law-abiding citizens, it enables them to, to be there without being reported to ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] in case of another crime that they might bear witness to,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi then went on to explain why Trump’s executive order makes so much sense:

“The point is – is that you do not turn law enforcement officers into immigration officers. That is really what the point is in the sanctuary city. So, it is not a question of getting sanctuary. Someone who … is guilty of a crime. They should be deported. Or sent to jail for what they do if you can catch them in time.”

Here’s the irony: Trump’s executive order doesn’t turn local law enforcement into immigration agents. It merely seeks to call attention to illegals who commit crimes that harm U.S. citizens. Like Pelosi claimed during the town hall, Trump believes that these individuals shouldn’t be allowed to remain in the country. And it’s safe to conclude that Wilkerson also agrees with this.

Thanks, Nancy Pelosi, for being one of the only Democrats in Congress to (albeit unknowingly) come out strongly against senseless sanctuary city provisions that harm citizens and protect criminals. (For more from the author of “Oops! Nancy Pelosi Accidentally Makes the Case for Trump’s Immigration Executive Order” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.