Barack_Obama_at_Las_Vegas_Presidential_Forum (1)

Obama Told US ‘Elections Have Consequences.’ Here’s One Way to Reverse His Liberal Legacy.

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

These were the infamous words President Barack Obama used to scold congressional Republicans just three days after his inauguration in 2009, foreshadowing how he would approach policymaking for the next eight years.

Rather than listening to and trying to work with Republicans, Obama governed through brute force—with his “pen and phone” more often than with the consent of Congress—guided by the dictates of his progressive ideology rather than the interests of the American people.

In virtually every policy area—from health care and immigration to the deployment of American troops and the accession to new international treaties—Obama ignored those who dared to dissent from his agenda and used whatever means necessary to accomplish his goals.

The result is a precarious legacy burdened by a host of deeply unpopular and highly controversial policies, many of which can be repealed, replaced, rolled back, and otherwise reformed by the new Republican majorities in Congress.

But Republicans should take care to avoid adopting the same high-handed, condescending governing style exhibited by Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress.

Instead of ignoring the concerns and preferences of the American people—and their elected officials at the state and local level—we should listen to and learn from them.

Rather than forcing diverse communities to abide by inflexible, burdensome rules and regulations devised by federal bureaucrats in Washington, we should empower local decision-makers to find solutions that address the unique needs of their families, neighborhoods, and businesses.

One of the areas of federal policy most in need of local empowerment is housing.

For instance, in 2015, the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, which requires cities and towns across the country to audit their local housing policies.

If any aspect of a community’s housing and demographic patterns fails to meet the department’s expansive definition of “fair housing” under the fair housing rule, the local government must submit a plan to reorganize the community’s housing practices according to the preferences and priorities of the department’s bureaucrats.

Failure to comply will result in the department withholding Community Development Block Grants, federal grant money that local officials have traditionally been free to use as they see fit.

Proponents of the fair housing rule claim the rule establishes a collaborative process, with local government officials in the driver’s seat while the bureaucrats at the Department of Housing and Urban Development merely provide “support” and “guidance.”

But the track record of the fair housing rule proves the opposite.

Many local housing officials from across the country, including in Utah, have told the same story: The costs of complying with the fair housing rule stretch their already thin resources, add hundreds of hours of bureaucratic paperwork to their workloads, and eliminate their autonomy to determine the best ways to provide adequate low-cost housing to their community.

To provide some measure of relief to local public housing authorities, a group of Republicans in Congress has supported legislation to restrict the department from using federal funds to implement the fair housing rule.

The Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act is the latest iteration of this legislation, which I joined Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., to introduce last week.

For the past 18 months, with Obama holding the executive veto pen and unwilling to believe that his policies are unpopular, there was very little chance this bill would be signed into law.

But on Jan. 20, when Donald Trump is sworn into office, that will change, and I will do everything in my power to ensure its swift passage.

After all, elections have consequences. (For more from the author of “Obama Told US ‘Elections Have Consequences.’ Here’s One Way to Reverse His Liberal Legacy.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Obama’s Commutation of Manning Sentence Sends a Horrible Message to Service Personnel

Exercising his authority under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, President Barack Obama commuted the court-martial sentence of convicted felon Bradley Manning.

Although there is no dispute that Obama had the legal authority to commute the former Army private first class’s sentence, the president and his advisors had to know that any relief granted to Manning would be terribly controversial, and for good reason.

Commuting Manning’s sentence sends a horrible message to everyone who serves in the U.S. military, emboldens those who seek to harm the United States, and disheartens countless Americans—in and out of uniform.

It is important to remember the facts of the case. This was not a whodunit. This was not a case where motive excused his behavior, as some Manning supporters argue.

This is a case about an Army private first class who, while stationed abroad, having access to top secret and other classified material, decided to steal that material and give it to Wikileaks, knowing full well that Wikileaks would publish the material for the world to see.

There is no dispute as to the facts of the case, as in some instances of presidential pardons. After Manning was caught, he was sent to a general (felony) court-martial. After consulting with his able defense attorneys, he decided to plead guilty.

In military guilty pleas, the accused must describe for the military trial judge facts sufficient to convince the judge, beyond a reasonable doubt, as to each and every element in each crime. The accused discusses these facts with the judge while under oath, and those discussions last a long time.

This case was no different.

According to the facts developed in the case, and discussed at the court-martial, between November 2009 and May 2010, Manning was deployed overseas, and during that deployment, had access to secret and top secret data. He had a duty not to disclose the data to any unauthorized person.

Nevertheless, he downloaded 400,000 classified files from the Iraq war, some 91,000 files from the Afghan war, around 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables (emails), sensitive and classified U.S. airstrike videos, and classified documents and files from Guantanamo Bay, including classified assessments of Guantanamo terrorist detainees.

Manning placed that material on a SD-type card, and took it. He gave that highly classified and sensitive material to Wikileaks, knowing full well that they would (1) publish the material and (2) that the material could and likely would fall into the hands of our enemies.

The Army charged Manning with, among other things, aiding the enemy—a crime that under certain circumstances could result in the death penalty.

Eventually, Manning decided to plead guilty instead of contesting the charges against him. The maximum possible sentence to those charges to which he pleaded guilty was 136 years. In other words, it would have been lawful for the trial judge to sentence Manning to 136 years.

At the sentencing hearing, the government presented evidence in aggravation of his crimes. Army Brigadier General Robert A. Carr, a top Pentagon intelligence official, testified that Manning’s disclosures “affected our ability to do our mission,” and endangered U.S. ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, testified that Manning’s actions sent the State Department into crisis and prompted a costly effort to assess the damage that the leaks had done.

He asserted, “I believe my colleagues abroad are still feeling [the results of the leak].”

Major General Michael Nagata, the deputy commander of the U.S. defense attaché in Pakistan, testified that Manning’s actions had a strong negative effect on the mission of the Office of Defense Representative in Pakistan.

Colonel Denise Lind, the military trial judge, sentenced Manning to 35 years and a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. Army. Manning filed his appeal in May 2016, which is now moot given the president’s commutation.

To some, Manning was a whistleblower who deserved of a pardon, or at least a sentence commutation. Indeed, one of the videos he gave to Wikileaks showed U.S. military personnel in Iraq engaged in a deeply troubling, if not illegal, shooting incident.

But there was so much more to Manning’s crimes than exposing that killing.

By downloading hundreds of thousands of secret documents about some of the most sensitive information related to the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, by disgorging highly sensitive diplomatic emails for the world to see, and recklessly exposing top secret files of terrorist detainees we held at Guantanamo, Manning betrayed his oath to his country, armed our enemies with information that they could only dream about acquiring, and forced our government to expend untold hours and money to minimize the damage inflicted by his criminal conduct.

Those who applaud the commutation also argue that the sentence Manning had received was “excessive and disproportionate.”

Yet it is difficult to imagine, much less point to, another case of a U.S. military member who singlehandedly stole the volume of classified information to an unauthorized source (Wilileaks), or one that caused the multi-layered damage to U.S. military security and diplomatic harmony that Manning caused by doing what he did.

Manning’s defenders argue that his mental health as a “vulnerable person” should act as a mitigating circumstance with respect to his sentence. But that argument was presented, in full, to Judge Lind before she sentenced Manning.

Under the law, military trial judges are required to take into account all aggravating and mitigating evidence before sentencing the accused. Thus, Manning already received the benefit of his gender identity issues when he was sentenced in the first place.

The “mercy” that some argue for was actually granted by the trial judge: She didn’t sentence Manning to the 50 or 100 or 136 years he could have served.

And everyone in the military justice system knows that a 35-year sentence of confinement, assuming good behavior while in custody, in reality will result in less than 10 years of confinement. Manning was set to be released in the coming year or so anyway.

Finally, it bears mentioning that U.S. military members across the globe carry out their duties, for the most part, with honor and fidelity. Many have access to secret and top secret material. Some have access to Special Access Program information—the most highly classified material our government possesses.

They guard this information with their lives, and for good reason. They know that if they violated their oaths by stealing this information and providing it to our enemies, American lives and national security would be in grave danger.

By commuting Manning’s richly deserved sentence, Obama is sending a horrible message to dedicated U.S. public servants, in and out of uniform, that honoring their responsibility to keep national security secrets from the public eye isn’t all that important.

This is a slap in their face. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Commutation of Manning Sentence Sends a Horrible Message to Service Personnel” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Once Again, Feminists Silence Pro-Life Women

It’s 2017 and women are still being silenced.

The twist is that it’s now by other women.

The Women’s March on Washington, scheduled to occur the day after President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, had listed a pro-life group, New Wave Feminists, as a partner organization. After The Atlantic highlighted the group’s participation as a partner in the march, the Women’s March took the group off the list, saying its inclusion had been an “error.”

“The protest is pro-choice and that has been our stance from Day One,” the Women’s March said in a statement. “We want to assure all of our partners, as well as our participants, that we are pro-choice as clearly stated in our Unity Principles. We look forward to marching on behalf of individuals who share the view that women deserve the right to make their own reproductive choices.”

Never mind that the event’s organizers had told The Daily Signal’s Kelsey Harkness in December that pro-lifers were welcome to participate in the Women’s March. “The message is not whether a person is pro-life or pro-choice,” said march organizer Tamika Mallory at the time.

It wasn’t entirely surprising they caved. Since Mallory spoke to The Daily Signal, Planned Parenthood has become a partner. And after The Atlantic published its article about the New Wave Feminists’ inclusion, liberal feminists tweeted their dismay:

The exact mission of the Women’s March, which started with Hawaii grandmother Teresa Shook’s Facebook comment on election night that “I think we should march,” has been somewhat … nebulous from its inception.

“What sparked the need for this movement was the rhetoric of the campaign was so demeaning to women,” Shook told ABC’s “Good Morning America” in an interview. “I just felt women needed to stand up and say, ‘Here we are, hear our voice, we’re strong, we’re empowered, and we’re not going away.’”

But regardless of the mission that the event organizers finally settled upon—(assuming they did settle on one—the Women’s March is now in trouble with liberal feminists for removing a statement on rights for sex workers)—it shouldn’t be called the Women’s March if it isn’t meant to be inclusive for all women.

As much as the left (and some of their cheerleaders in the media) love to portray women as a unified bloc of pink-wearing Planned Parenthood cheerleaders who cherish no political right as much as they do the right to abortion, the political reality is far more complicated.

Four out of 10 women in America think abortion should be “illegal in all/most cases,” according to a poll released last year by the Pew Research Center. And two-thirds of women voters support legislation that would ban abortions after 20 weeks, except if the mother’s life is in danger or in cases of rape and incest, according to a November poll commissioned by the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life organization.

In other words, the pro-choice position of the “Women’s March” is excluding a lot of American women.

And unfortunately, that’s all too common. In our political discourse, it’s regularly assumed that all women agree with the Lena Dunhams of the world.

It doesn’t matter how many women passionately believe that both female and male unborn children deserve the right to life, despite being small and dependent. It doesn’t matter how many women think all women deserve something better than the kind of treatment delivered by Dr. Kermit Gosnell, under whose care a woman undergoing a second-trimester abortion died.

It doesn’t matter how many women think that what can best help a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy is financial support and personal care, the kind delivered by pregnancy centers across the country—not a push that she end the life of her child.

Or at least that doesn’t matter to the liberal feminists who constantly demand pro-life women be excluded.

It’s time the left accept that women have a diversity of views on many issues, including on abortion.

And if liberal feminists are sincere about women’s rights, they’ll realize that means that all women, not just those they agree with, deserve a seat at the table (or a place in the march) to represent their views. (For more from the author of “Once Again, Feminists Silence Pro-Life Women” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Journalist Who Exposed CIA’s Media Control, Conspiracy with Banks, Found Dead at 56

Dr Udo Ulfkotte, the former German newspaper editor whose bestselling book exposed how the CIA controls German media, has been found dead. He was 56.

Ulfkotte was an editor at Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the largest newspapers in Germany, when he published Bought Journalists, the bestselling book that cost him his job and perhaps his life.

German media, who were banned from reporting on his work in recent years, are reporting he died of “heart failure”.

Acknowledging that his life was under threat, Ulfkotte explained that he was in a better position than most journalists to expose the truth because he didn’t have any children who could be threatened.

Speaking to the Russian newspaper Russian Insider, Ulkfotte said: “When I told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Ulfkotte’s newspaper) that I would publish the book, their lawyers sent me a letter threatening with all legal consequences if I would publish any names or secrets – but I don’t mind. You see, I don’t have children to take care of.“

His fears for a war in Europe, lead him to his decision to tell the truth about corporate media being controlled by intelligence services on behalf of the financial class.

(Read more from “Journalist Who Exposed CIA’s Media Control, Conspiracy with Banks, Found Dead at 56” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Omar Mateen’s Wife Arrested for Aiding TERROR. So STOP with the Word Games, Media!

Earlier today the FBI announced the arrest of the widow of jihadi Omar Mateen, the man who ruthlessly killed innocent Americans — in the name of Islam — at the Pulse night club in Orlando, Florida. Noor Salman has been arrested on charges of aiding her husband in the planning of the jihadist attack. There’s one key point that the mainstream media has been leaving out of their headlines about the arrest. That’s right, instead of the headlines identifying Mateen as a jihadi, or even terrorist, they all scream some version of “mass shooter.”

Mateen’s wife was charged with “aiding & abetting the attempted provision of material support to a foreign terrorist organization.”

These are terrorism, not “shooting” charges.

Nevertheless, here is the how the New York Times reported it via headline.

nyt shooter vs terror

Here’s the CBS News headline.

cbs shooter vs terror

There are countless other stories that have some variation of the headline “mass shooter” instead of “jihadi” or “terrorist,” and this is nothing new. The American media has always preferred to keep the motive out of headlines regarding jihadi attacks so that they can push another narrative. This, purposeful headline writing is a subject we’ve covered extensively here at Conservative Review.

The word “shooter” is purposely used to push a gun control narrative. CR’s Chris Pandolfo wrote about the difference in coverage of foreign jihadi attacks by American news outfits compared to jihadi attacks on U.S. soil. Pandolfo also highlighted the difference in coverage of the Orlando ISIS inspired jihadi attack.

Other conservative writers have also pointed this out. Here’s what Charles C. W. Cooke tweeted at the time.

New York Times reporter Adam Goldman also took to Twitter to remind us all about his puff piece on Mateen’s wife.

The main stream media has made a lot of noise recently about “fake news.” There has also been pushback on misleading headlines.

In this fast paced, 24/7 social media culture, people do often just read headlines. The MSM knows this and uses it to their advantage when pushing a narrative. Today’s headlines are just another example. (For more from the author of “Omar Mateen’s Wife Arrested for Aiding TERROR. So STOP with the Word Games, Media!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Left’s “Abortion-Armageddon” Hysteria Now in Full Force with Trump

Remember when conservatives thought President Obama was so pro-choice he would practically require women to have abortions to both show how thankful they were that they even had such a right and to demonstrate the importance of it? No? Me neither. That’s because President Obama never said such a thing — nor did any media, right of center, speculate he might believe that. To do so would have been false, dangerously reckless, and just plain absurd.

Yet, ever since President Trump won the election, the media has been anxiously predicting the era of a woman’s “right to choose” will soon be over, as all Republicans are apparently working to curtail access to the wonder of abortion. (Strangely, nothing is said of the lives of actual babies at stake.)

In this, the Left not only acts unfairly, but misses the point altogether of where much of the conservative movement stands on abortion. Hint: It’s not in the middle of a back alley, beckoning women to get abortions via coat hangers, risking life and limb.

What Trump will do

In this New York magazine cover story, “Warning: Abortion’s Deadly DIY Past Could Soon Become Its Future,” the writer all but predicts Trump will single-handedly overturn Roe v. Wade, forcing women to have abortions illegally in secret.

Upon his November election win, Americans Googled “abortion” so much it looked like the “manifestation of collective anxiety about what would become an early flash point in the Trump administration—and a first test of whether much of the social progress of the past 40 years can be undone over the next four.”

The piece describes how our great grandmothers had to seek abortions secretly and dangerously: “This isn’t ancient history; this was the lived reality of many of our mothers and certainly of our grandmothers. And it is entirely possible that it could become our future as well.”

One of the things they worry Trump will do is what Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. (F, 52%) has often said Congress will (and attempted to do last year) — defund Planned Parenthood. The New York cover story suggests that if this were to occur:

60 percent of Planned Parenthood patients — who rely on those programs for Pap smears, breast exams, STD testing, and, of course, contraception would no longer be able to get that care from Planned Parenthood. For many, that would mean not being able to get treatment at all.

This could not be more false. Defunding Planned Parenthood simply means they won’t receive taxpayer dollars. In fact, last year the House Oversight Committee found Planned Parenthood was able to function without taxpayer subsidies. If the absence of taxpayer dollars forces the group to shut down, perhaps they never should have been in operation in the first place.

So is this an attempt by Republicans to handle taxpayer dollars wisely that doubles as an attempt to save the lives of unborn babies? Absolutely. Bloomberg did report last February abortion clinics were closing at a “record pace.” Since 2011, 162 clinics closed, not all operated by Planned Parenthood.

And while most of those closings were due to legislation, some closed because they were not fit to practice medicine — a fact that doesn’t seem to bother the Left. By contrast, the number of crisis pregnancy centers, which typically steer patients away from abortion, are growing at an alarming pace.

Babies have rights, too

New York mag explains, “The truth is, conservative activists and legislators have been chipping away at American women’s access to reproductive health care for years, with more and greater restrictions in more and more states.”

While the above might appear to the Left as a strategic maneuver to strip women of the supposed right to choose, the statistics — abortion clinics defunded or closing and crisis pregnancy centers rising — more accurately show a two-pronged effort to stop murdering babies in utero.

The piece continues:

That the right wing’s focus is not simply opposition to abortion but also reducing women’s access to contraception gives away the game: Theirs is an effort to keep women from making decisions about when, if, and under what circumstances to have children, and thereby to keep them from exerting agency over their families, their work, their partnerships, their sex lives, and their bodies.


Speaker Paul Ryan, when asked if birth control would still be free when Republicans repeal Obamacare, called it a “nitty-gritty detail,” and was lambasted for his callousness toward what is apparently a central issue in U.S. health care. The issue is neither central nor an “effort to keep women from making decisions about when, if, and under what circumstances to have children.”

Remind me again why and with what logic should the government provide health care, birth control et al., for free? That’s the central issue. When my husband and I were newly married and just beginning to talk through if or when we might like children, it never occurred to me the government should pay for my birth control, just like the government does not pay for my dentistry.

While they’re not always successful at implementing this, the party of limited government and fiscal responsibility sometimes tries to enforce these ideas.

Ignorance is bliss

Despite the fact that Roe v. Wade was decided decades ago, the Left still feigns outrage when conservatives try to curtail abortions by any means, legislatively or otherwise. Articles like and the New York mag story show how they even pretend to not understand why.

Over the years, conservatives have embraced science from Princeton that shows when life begins, studies from Oxford that describe how babies feel pain in the womb, and how ultrasounds change women’s minds about their babies. The Right has encouraged marches, picketing, legislation, safe clinics, care for moms and babies postpartum, and adoption. In fact, conservatives are doing this so successfully it’s spawned abortion-armageddon hysteria.

It’s baffling as to how the Left continues to insist, after four decades, that Republicans — who have repeatedly fought for women’s rights over the last century — actually care more about limiting women’s freedoms than saving lives.

It’s such an obvious truth it’s hard to know if this ignorance is feigned or real. Only one of these efforts between the two political parties is beneficial for mom, baby, dad, and society. The other is harmful, if ever progressive and “liberating.”

Conservatives can and do care about women’s rights and babies’ rights — the two aren’t mutually exclusive. And doing both doesn’t mean women are going to be forced to have abortions in back alleys; it means women might actually think twice about aborting their babies, thus sparing emotional trauma, life, and making a difference in society’s cultural makeup. That’s what conservatives are trying to do. (For more from the author of “The Left’s “Abortion-Armageddon” Hysteria Now in Full Force with Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


History Was Just Made in the Senate — and Hell Hath Frozen Over

If you’ve been around politics for at least five minutes or more, you learn there are certain unwritten rules that conservatives are just supposed to accept to our own detriment. And if you stick around another five minutes longer, you learn those unwritten rules are never to be applied the other way to our favor.

Until now.

Last week there was a shocking sight in Washington. Something not seen since the days when everybody smoked like John Boehner. In fact, we here at Conservative Review didn’t believe it ourselves at first, but we can now confirm that just happened.

A moderate-to-liberal Republican evolved to the Right.

That’s right my fellow randomly evolved via natural process alone primates. If there really was such a thing as Hell it would’ve instantly frozen over at the visual alone of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. (F, 30%) standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) — whom he once joked about killing on the floor of the Senate — arguing for the defunding of the United Nations, otherwise known as the progressives’ Taj Mahal.

And it even happened on MSNBC, no less.

“Jesus, take the wheel.”

“Rapture me now.”

“This is the big one. I’m comin’ for you.”

“Goodbye cruel world!”

Whichever parting words you prefer are now appropriate. For there was Graham, the sort of Republican who would typically offer to give the UN even more of our money than the Democrats ask for just to show he’s not one of us, being one of us. Of course, this leads to instant and suspicious speculation, and you really can’t blame conservatives for it. Lucy has pulled the football away from us so often we don’t even try to kick it anymore. We just embarrassingly fall down on our own when it’s offered just to get the disappointment over with.

“What did Cruz sell us out on in return?”

“Let me guess, this doesn’t really defund anything and that’s why Lindsey Grahamnesty supported it, right”

“Maybe defunding the UN isn’t a good idea at all if John McCain’s, R-Ariz. (F, 32%) lap poodle is for it?”

Far be it for Mr. Total Depravity here to be a beacon of hope, but perhaps we should just shut up listen to nana when she taught us “never look a gift horse in the mouth.” I know it seems unlikely, but perhaps Graham simply saw how overtly anti-Israel the UN’s latest actions are and decided to act on his courage of conviction?

Stop laughing. No, really, I wasn’t trying to be funny. That might’ve happened. I mean, it’s not like we just elected a reality TV star, who violated every unwritten rule of decorum and protocol, to the presidency or something.

So maybe it is a brand new day? Or maybe a leopard really never changes his spots? Or maybe we should just be adults and practice that whole discernment thing we tend to cast aside for pack-like, binary-choice thinking. Remember that adults draw distinctions, because the world — as well as the people in it — are more complicated than simple either-or at all times scenarios.

Sometimes people are right for the wrong reasons, and sometimes they’re wrong for the right ones. Sometimes the people you disagree with on everything else are right about this one thing, and sometimes the people you do agree with on everything else are wrong about this one.

In fact, I’ve found myself agreeing with Graham more in the past month than I have the past decade. Why? Because I think he’s been right, that’s why. That doesn’t mean we’re right about what we agree on, by the way, but it does mean as an adult I have a choice to make. Do I believe the truth is the truth, regardless of the one wielding it? Or do I believe truth is determined by the one wielding it? In other words, is truth its own transcendent thing to be sought and found, or do we make our own truth or determine what the truth is?

One view of truth makes you a conservative, and the other doesn’t. Can you guess which is which?

So, yes, typically Graham has not been my kind of Republican. And back when I still was a Republican it’s unlikely I was his type, too. A child considers that knowledge and doesn’t accept Graham’s help when it’s offered, but instead criticizes its own ally like Cruz for accepting it. An adult takes help whenever it’s offered, even from unconventional sources, provided it doesn’t require compromising your own integrity in return and is grateful for it.

And I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention lately, but America is suffering from a dearth of adults at the moment.

“When I was a child I thought, spoke, and reasoned as a child. When I became an adult I set aside such childish things.” – St. Paul

(For more from the author of “History Was Just Made in the Senate — and Hell Hath Frozen Over” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


What Obama’s Farewell Speech Revealed about His Plans for YOUR Future

In Obama’s farewell address, he rekindled his lifelong effort to reinvigorate leftist activism, provided hints and direction for more concentrated efforts, and directed leftists as to how to go about bringing “change.”

In November I wrote two pieces here and here, that had to do with community organizing on the constitutional conservative side, to counter the obvious organizational superiority of the Left. With Obama free to take up his previous tasks with rockstar status and an extremely distraught Left, he will have the fuel to launch highly motivated leftists in every town. We must be there too.

Obama began his speech describing his beginning as a community organizer in Chicago, saying, “I began working with church groups in the shadows of closed steel mills.” His start was a direct copy of Saul Alinsky’s start to begin to radically change the minds and hearts of people through agitation.

Writing about Hillary Clinton’s ties with Saul Alinsky over the summer, I quoted Alinsky when he argued community organizer must be:

… dedicated to changing the character of life of a particular community [and] has an initial function of serving as an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions… to provide a channel into which they can pour their frustration of the past; to create a mechanism which can drain off underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. When those who represent the status quo label you [i.e. the community organizer] as an ‘agitator’ they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function–to agitate to the point of conflict.

That’s what the Left calls “community organizing.” Rubbing raw resentment and anger to the point of conflict. It is what we as Americans have been subject to during Obama’s presidency, and what has provided much of the strain we all see in the nation.

And Obama is certainly dedicated to that end. His farewell speech sought to re-dedicate his most loyal followers.

Obama called upon the Left to organize many times in his speech, including, but not limited to, these statements:

“… change only happens when ordinary people get involved, get engaged, and come together to demand it.”

“We, the People, through the instrument of our democracy, can form a more perfect union.”

“… we must forge a new social compact”

“All of us have more work to do.”

“All of us, regardless of party, should throw ourselves into the task of rebuilding our democratic institutions.”

“And all of this depends on our participation; on each of us accepting the responsibility of citizenship, regardless of which way the pendulum of power swings.”

“We, the people, give it power – with our participation, and the choices we make.”

“So you see, that’s what our democracy demands. It needs you.”

“If you’re tired of arguing with strangers on the Internet, try talking with one of them in real life.”

“If you’re disappointed by your elected officials, grab a clipboard, get some signatures and run for office yourself.”

“Show up. Dive in. Stay at it.”

“I am asking you to believe, not in my ability to bring about change, but in yours.”

“To believe that you can make a difference, to hitch your wagon to something bigger than yourselves.”

Obama’s not going anywhere.

So many have complained that Trump was butting in on Obama’s presidency, causing a dual presidency. But now the shoe is on the other foot, and leftists are outright ignoring the greatness of the Constitution’s Electoral College, calling Trump “illegitimate,” and continuing to follow Obama as their president, blowing up the rule of law in their altered reality.

But Obama didn’t just call on his followers to organize. He issued directives for his community organizers while using the founding principles we all believe in: “self-government,” and “that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

But Obama and his followers do not believe those principles. If they believed in self-government, they would put stock in themselves and God instead of the government. If they believed that we are all created equal, they wouldn’t continue to agitate one man against another while focusing on our differences. If they believed we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights such as life, they would be pro-life instead of pro-abortion. If they believed in Liberty, they wouldn’t engage in coercion as they did with Obamacare, and so on.

Laced throughout the speech, Obama focused leftist agitators on:

Guaranteed college education

Increased unionization

Increased welfare

Higher taxation

Continued class warfare

Radical racialization

Forced employment policies

The false flag of anthropogenic global warming

Abortion as a human right

Fighting against voter ID laws

Overturning Citizens United v Federal Elections Committee


Contrary to Obama’s litany of “worthy causes,” constitutional conservatives must be able to articulate the proper disposition of the Constitution as it is dragged through the mud with the Left’s unending destruction of it. We need a counter to the Alinskyites.

President Obama gave all of us a list of things to do, and it matters because he is telling us that his side will be out there in force giving the people a destructive worldview. We will see more agitating, marching, demonstrating, and rioting, but that is not the beginnings of their conspiracies.

All too often, we ignore how the Left is able to change minds and hearts. They do it by influencing our churches, our neighborhoods, our culture, our schools, and our government at local, state, and federal levels. They are directed to by their president. Constitutional conservatives must stop playing catch-up with the Left or act as spectators, giving opinions that identify what is going wrong without providing the proper way to make it go right. We can’t just complain about how the Left changes our culture. We have to be there to nip it all in the bud, and provide the corrected version of the Left’s historically inaccurate and intellectually lazy homework. (For more from the author of “What Obama’s Farewell Speech Revealed about His Plans for YOUR Future” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


State Department Held Workshops for Employees Dealing with Trump Transition Stress

The Department of State held workshops in December for agency employees struggling with the emotional stress of the Trump Transition, the Washington Free Beacon reports.

The workshop, titled, “The Emotional Transition: Managing the Stress of Change,” was advertised in an agency-wide email, and employees were allowed to dedicate work time to the hour-long sessions. The sessions were held Dec. 8 and Dec. 14, a month after President-elect Donald Trump defeated former State Department Secretary Hillary Clinton in the presidential race.

“Change is an inevitable part of the human experience,” an email invitation for the workshop said, according to the Washington Free Beacon. “We can become paralyzed by fear or allow the experience of change to propel us closer to self-actualization.”

“Our perspective determines our outcome,” the State Department email continued. “This seminar is designed to discuss the impact of change; the emotional cycles some people experience when confronted with change, and tools to effectively manage the stress of change.”

The stress workshops were sponsored by State’s Bureau of Medical Services, which regularly provides “treatment for problems related to the stress of deployment to high-threat posts, overseas crises and other stressful situations encountered by Foreign Service Officers, family members and State Department employees overseas.” (Read more from “State Department Held Workshops for Employees Dealing with Trump Transition Stress” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Religious Freedom under President-Elect Trump

As we commemorate Religious Freedom Day 2017, on January 16th, we mark a year of much change and a season of much opportunity for religious freedom.

President-Elect Trump’s surprise win can be credited in part to widespread (and unforeseen) angst over eight years of an Obama administration that has increasingly meddled in individual lives and liberty. In the area of religious freedom, the federal government has picked and chosen which religious freedom claims to advance and which to ignore. While the administration has disproportionately highlighted Muslim religious rights, it has failed to defend the rights of Christians — both overseas and at home. It also only supports religious freedom claims when they do not interfere with its pet causes of promoting abortion and LGBT policies. Such selectivity and bias destroys the integrity of any religious freedom policy; unfortunately, our federal government has done exactly that.

President-Elect Trump now has an opportunity to restore the credibility of U.S. religious freedom policy, at home and abroad, by addressing these incongruities. He can do this with two simple policy adjustments:

Protect religious freedom equally for everyone. Justice is blind, and the same law must be applied neutrally and fairly to everyone, regardless of their religion, and regardless of the circumstances. Some claims will succeed and others will fail under our religious freedom laws — they have always functioned this way. The key is that all are entitled to a fair shot. Yet by prioritizing some and deprioritizing others in its policy, the Obama administration has unfairly influenced the race out of the starting gate. This approach has been incredibly destructive to the morale of anyone who cares about religious freedom. The new president can do much good merely by taking the approach that all religious claims deserve to be treated equally by the government, regardless of the faith of the individual and the context in which the claim is raised.

Protect robust religious exercise, not a stifled and limited notion of the idea advanced by the Obama administration and championed by losing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Under the Obama administration’s view, religious freedom only applies fully within “houses of worship,” not to one’s place of business or anywhere else. Yet this is neither true under our laws nor faithful to our history. Religious freedom includes the ability to exercise one’s religious beliefs in all spheres of life; indeed, this is reflected domestically in our First Amendment and internationally in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Despite what the Obama administration would wish, religious freedom simply doesn’t exist when the Little Sisters are forced by the government to violate their consciences by helping provide abortion-causing drugs to their employees — as the administration tried to force them to do. These nuns did not have religious freedom under the administration’s proposals, despite what the government tried to claim. This must be corrected.

Policy changes in these two areas apply to our international religious freedom efforts as well. The Obama administration has failed to properly prioritize religious freedom in our international affairs, and has abandoned our historical role as a strong religious freedom and human rights defender around the world. President-Elect Trump has an opportunity to change this, and re-engage the United States on this critical issue worldwide by defending the right of all to freely choose and live out their beliefs. Marginalized peoples around the world often look to the United States for help when they are persecuted because of their religion, and we should be there for them. A proper understanding of religious freedom demands that it be defended for all, at home and abroad.

This proper understanding of religious freedom has been dangerously eroded over the past eight years. President-Elect Trump has an opportunity to lead in restoring it, and the above two steps would be a start. (For more from the author of “Religious Freedom under President-Elect Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.