Stephen Miller says free speech for us, not for you - - It’s Stephen Miller’s Show Now
"Not yet .. Inside Stephen Miller’s Reign of Terror"
Related:
mind-war.com “Just Kill ‘Em” [...]
Lawrence Jones: They have given billions of dollars to mental health and the homeless population. A lot of them don't want to take the programs. A lot of them don't want to get the help that's necessary. You can't give them a choice. Either you take the resources that we're going to give you and or you decide that you got to be locked up in jail. That's the way it has to be now. Brian Kilmeade: Or involuntary lethal injection or something. I’d just kill ‘em. Ainsley Earhart: Brian, why did it have to get to this point?
The most powerful guy in Trump’s ear has a plan for how to respond to the death of Charlie Kirk. You’re not going to like it.
William Kristol, Andrew Egger, and Jim Swift Sep 15, 2025
Kash Patel’s lonely one-man crusade to convince everybody he actually did a great job hunting down Charlie Kirk’s killer continues. “I made the decision to surge so many resources,” he told Fox & Friends this morning. “I had to expedite the process . . . I made the tough calls . . . I came in and I accelerated that process.” All told, during Patel’s 15 minute interview, we counted ten mentions of the word “my,” a whopping 43 mentions of the word “I,” and 13 mentions of the word “I’m.” On, and four mentions of the word “me.”
Despite his unassuming title of “deputy chief of staff,” Stephen Miller is one of the most powerful men in America. His boss, Donald Trump, is undisciplined and unfocused, prone to launching major initiatives (mass deportation, D.C. crime crackdown) before wandering off to get distracted by fripperies (redecorating the White House, micromanaging the Kennedy Center). Miller, by contrast, is the always-on attack dog, single-mindedly scheming up new ways to translate the president’s vague pronouncements into applications of real government power. As one top official at a major university in the crosshairs of this administration told us: he is the point person on all of it; his office, the real power center inside the White House.
How Miller has been talking in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination should have everybody worried.
Last Thursday morning, less than 24 hours after the shooting, Miller tweeted out a thesis statement. “There is an ideology that has steadily been growing in this country,” he wrote, “which hates everything that is good, righteous and beautiful and celebrates everything that is warped, twisted and depraved.” This ideology has “one unifying thread,” he added: “the insatiable thirst for destruction.”
[Miller is not only lying there by fabricating a left ideology which does not exist, he is also projecting. He is projecting because what he describes there describes much more accurately the ideology he himself is promoting. How else to describe the Trump administration's attack on democratic institutions of the USA but by "“the insatiable thirst for destruction.”"]
“It is an ideology that leads, always, inevitably and willfully, to violence,” Miller went on. “The fate of millions depends on the defeat of this wicked ideology.”
[Trump and other prominent members of his administration have made more hateful comment and have promoted violence more than those of the left. No one can objectively argue against that.]
What is this ideology? Radical leftism, of course—defined, in our deeply polarized age, as anything outside the bounds of true-blue, salt-of-the-earth, God-fearing MAGA patriotism.
How does Miller intend to defeat this ideology? We don’t have to guess. In a Friday appearance on Sean Hannity, Miller made his plans clear: Smash every institution of the left with the power of the state.
[Yes that does look like blatant fascism.]
“The last message that Charlie Kirk gave me before he joined his creator in heaven was he said that we have to dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence,” Miller ranted. “And we are going to do that, under President Trump’s leadership. I don’t care how. It could be a RICO charge, a conspiracy charge, conspiracy against the United States, insurrection. But we are going to do what it takes to dismantle the organizations and the entities that are fomenting riots, that are doxxing, that are trying to inspire terrorism, that are committing acts of wanton violence.”
Miller made a promise: “The power of law enforcement, under President Trump’s leadership, will be used to find you, will be used to take away your money, take away your power, and, if you’ve broken the law, to take away your freedom.”
That’s an interesting way of putting it, isn’t it? Miller’s promise, made in public, is to bring down the fist of the state on radical left organizations, to take away their money and their power—and then, for those who have broken the law, to take away their freedom as well. Why should the ones who haven’t broken the law lose their money and their power? Well, that’s obvious, Miller seems to say: Because we’ve decreed that they’re domestic terrorists.
---- [It shouldn't be necessary for honest insightful people as Thom Hartmann to condemn the wrongheaded 'bothsidesism' that corrupts political discourse so badly in the United States. It shouldn't be necessary any longer because of the history of incendiary rhetoric so well written by Hartmann here: [...] Alongside that, Trump has publicly urged defunding or punishing the FBI and DOJ when they investigate him, and even floated “terminating” parts of the Constitution, which is rhetoric that would have ended careers a generation ago and now earns a shrug from most of his party’s elected officials. [...] And now, in the wake of Kirk’s murder, Republicans are again amping up the violent rhetoric. Laura Loomer just posted, “More people will be murdered if the Left isn’t crushed with the power of the state.” Trump referenced “radical left political violence” as if that’s the only source of it.
[Insert: "...if the left isn't crushed with the power of the state", yes that does look like blatant fascism. Authoritarianism is alive and sick in the United States.]
Sean Davis, the CEO of The Federalist, wrote, “When Democrats lose elections they couldn’t steal, they murder the people they were unable to defeat.” Fox Host Jesse Waters said, “Whether we want to accept it or not, they are at war with us.” Mother Jones compiled a more comprehensive list ..
The crucial thing to keep in mind here is that Miller is not talking about Kirk’s assassin—or even about groups the FBI is investigating to determine whether that assassin acted alone. Instead, he is referring primarily to those Americans who posted callous, cruel, or even just nonchalant things online in the wake of Kirk’s assassination. And he’s not talking just about people on the federal government’s payroll but everyday citizens going about their lives. “In recent days, we have learned just how many Americans in positions of authority—child services, law clerks, hospital nurses, teachers, gov’t workers, even DOD employees—have been deeply and violently radicalized,” Miller wrote on X yesterday. “The consequence of a vast, organized ecosystem of indoctrination.”
Miller’s argument is thus very explicit. Those putting their worst foot forward online after Kirk’s murder weren’t just displaying a lack of empathy that characterizes so much of our ultra-polarized, social media age. They were the deliberate outcome of a specific liberal plot—an “organized ecosystem of indoctrination” on the part of specific, knowable “radical left organizations” that are chockablock with “domestic terrorists.” And the Trump administration is preparing to use any criminal pretext available to take these terrorists down.
Many of the posts exulting in Kirk’s death that have gone viral in recent days have indeed been sickeningly indecent. But America’s remarkably robust free speech protections extend even to sickeningly indecent speech. You think social media posts are bad?In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 that it was legal for Westboro Baptist Church to picket the funerals of gay servicemen while holding signs like “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “You’re Going to Hell.” In the land of the free, you take the good with the bad. Miller plainly seeks to sweep that all away.
We have arrived at an extremely dangerous moment. Trump’s remarkably unchained performance as president so far in his second term might suggest to some that he is just doing whatever he wants, regardless of law or public opinion. The former might be true; the latter is a more complicated question. Trump has in fact backed quietly away from White House actions when they have proven dramatically unpopular: his plan to house American criminals in torture prisons in El Salvador, his “Liberation Day” tariffs, his invasion of Chicago (for now), the Great Elon Experiment.
Under ordinary circumstances, an explicit and ostentatious political purge like the one Miller is threatening would likely land in this range. But it’s hard to overstate how freaked out U.S. conservatives have been over the assassination of Kirk—and how shaken they are over the cruelest responses to that assassination that have originated from leftists online.
Those cruel responses have originated from a small army of online shitposters, not prominent liberal thinkers or Democratic elected officials. But for conservatives it has felt like confirmation of what they’re hearing from their own side’s politicians and influencers: The left straight up wants you dead. Miller is only happy to egg this on. And for whatever one thinks of the guy, he’s proven to be shrewd and Machiavellian in his use of power. How much leash is he going to be given for his purge? That’s the chilling question we hope we don’t have to find out.
A quick programming note: JVL will go live today with Heather Cox Richardson at 3 p.m. EDT on Substack. They'll pick up the discussion from a recent Triad on whether Trump is the inevitable culmination of conservatism. Join them live here. We’ll send an email as they get started and post the replay on the site.
The Basic Rights of Trans Americans
by William Kristol
We’ll observe Constitution Day later this week, on September 17. It isn’t a major American holiday, overshadowed as it is by July 4, Independence Day. The priority of July 4 is fitting and proper—for as Lincoln observed, having in mind the passage from Proverbs 25:11, the Constitution is the picture of silver that frames and safeguards the Declaration’s apple of gold.
September 17 marks the date of the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. But of course that wasn’t the end of the story. The Constitution then had to be ratified by each state, and that was a complicated and contentious affair. Rhode Island, the last of the original thirteen states to ratify the Constitution, only did so on May 29, 1790—more than a year after George Washington had been sworn in as our first president.
In August 1790, President Washington visited Rhode Island to acknowledge the state’s recent (if somewhat tardy!) ratification of the Constitution. Among the dignitaries who greeted him was Moses Seixas, warden of Newport’s Touro Synagogue. In his welcoming remarks, Seixas expressed thanks that his people, elsewhere deprived because of their religion of “the invaluable rights of free Citizens,” lived in this new nation under a government “which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”
The next day, Washington wrote to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport to thank Seixas. But he used his public letter to make a broader point to all his fellow citizens. Indeed, he used some of Seixas’ language to do so. After thanking the congregants for their “cordial welcome,” Washington explained that:
The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.
It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens.
Washington concluded by expressing the hope that here “every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
Jews were then a tiny percentage of the population of the United States–something like 2,500 souls out of almost 4 million. But Washington wanted to emphasize that the members of this small and previously persecuted minority were entitled, here in the United States, to the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as everyone else.
Two hundred and thirty five years later, there is in this nation a minority group whose rights are under severe attack: transgender individuals. We have a presidential administration which seeks to curtail those individuals’ rights. We have a powerful political movement that wishes to make them afraid.
This is wrong. It’s also un-American. Other Americans don’t have to understand or sympathize with transgender individuals. But we ought to defend their basic human rights. We ought to do so out of a simple sense of justice. But we also ought to do so out of a sense of pride that our nation exemplifies an “enlarged and liberal policy” for mankind, and that here “there shall be none to make him afraid.”
AI
