cross-671379_960_720 (1)

Majority of Democrats Consider Christianity as Violent as Islam

Nearly 66 percent of Democrats believe that while Islam is dangerous, Christianity is just as bad.

This trusting attitude towards Islam is revealed in a new CBS poll. According to the poll of more than 1,000 adults, about seven in 10 Democrats believe that Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, et al, encourage just as much violence as Islam . . .

Republicans, meanwhile, have a much chillier view of Islam–63 percent saying Islam is more violent than other religions and only two percent calling Islam less violent than other faiths.

This survey comes following 17 years of attacks on Americans inspired by Islamic ideology, including: the 9/11 attacks in 2001; the San Bernardino, California, shooting that left 14 dead, the Pulse Nightclub attack in Orlando that killed 50, as well as attacks in Paris and Nice, France in the last two years. (Read more from “Majority of Democrats Consider Christianity as Violent as Islam” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


An Appeal to the President and Vice-President to Reconsider Their LGBT Strategy

Dear Mr. President and Mr. Vice-President,

I write this letter as a supporter and advocate, not a critic or adversary. As someone who voted for you and who regularly calls on millions of Americans to pray for you. I also write this with the understanding that you have been elected to serve the American people as a whole and not just one particular faction of Americans.

The great challenge, however, is one that you must deal with on a daily basis: When you stand up for what you believe is right — be it securing our borders or nominating a solid pro-life justice to the Supreme Court — you will alienate a certain number of Americans who oppose your policies and choices. That is inevitable, although regrettable, but if there is any political leader on the planet who is more concerned with acting on convictions than with pleasing people, it is you.

And this brings me to the heart of this appeal.

While you have consistently positioned yourself as a friend of the LGBT community during your campaigning, having Peter Thiel speak at the Republican National Convention and holding up a “LGBT’s for Trump” flag at one of your rallies, you have never positioned yourself as a champion of the gay and transgender agenda.

Conversely, you have most certainly positioned yourself as a champion of religious freedom, and you know that without the vote of conservative Christians (with whom I identify), you could not have gained the presidency. In that respect, we are a unique and important part of your constituency and some of your strongest supporters.

In your first weeks in office, we have been tremendously heartened by some key choices you have made, and we were encouraged by the forcefulness of your speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. It is clear that our religious liberties are very important to you, and they should be, since they are at the very foundation of our nation.

We were also encouraged to hear that you were considering legislation that would have protected religious groups from the negative effects of one of President Obama’s executive orders, namely, the order that put sexual orientation and gender identity on a par with skin color and ethnicity, as if gay was the new black or as if a man identifying as a woman was the same as him being Asian or Hispanic.

As it turns out, you decided to uphold Mr. Obama’s pro-LGBT activism, meaning, that while standing strongly for religious liberty you are unintentionally undercutting that very same liberty.

Mr. President, I truly believe that you desire to stand with LGBT Americans and you do not want to see them hurt or attacked by others, and I second your sentiments wholeheartedly. At the same time, your actions will potentially punish conservative Christians and others for simply living out their faith. Not only so, but I believe you will soon learn that there is no appeasing LGBT activists and that as long as you demonstrate loyalty to your conservative Christian base, you will be considered their enemy.

To make matters worse — and here I turn my appeal to Mr. Pence — when the vice president recently appeared on ABC News with George Stephanopoulos, discussing this very issue, Mr. Pence responded to a pointed question about this action by stating that “throughout the campaign, President Trump made it clear that discrimination would have no place in our administration.” He added, “I think the generosity of his spirit, recognizing that in the patriot’s heart, there’s no room for prejudice, is part of who this president is.”

Mr. Vice President, I know you are a committed Christian yourself, but may I ask if you are saying that it is prejudiced and discriminatory for someone to believe that it’s best for a child to have a mother and father (rather than two fathers or two mothers)? That it is prejudiced and discriminatory to believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman (and therefore not the union of two men or two women)? That it is prejudiced and discriminatory to believe that a 15-year-old boy who believes he is a girl should not be allowed to play on the girls’ sports teams or share their locker rooms and shower stalls?

Last year in England, a 42-year-old Christian evangelist was handing out gospel pamphlets on the street when a 19-year-old gay teen asked him what his God said about homosexuality. The preacher quoted Genesis to him, explaining that God made Adam and Eve to reproduce and have children.

Subsequently, the preacher was arrested and held in custody overnight and “accused of threatening or abusive behaviour ‘aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation’ — despite not swearing or using any form of offensive language.”

Vice President Pence, with all due honor, I ask you: Do you see how your choice of words reinforces the same mentality that led to the arrest of this Christian evangelist, specifically, that his actions were allegedly “aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation”?

And President Trump, with the utmost respect, I ask you: Do you see how the executive order you upheld is a step in the wrong direction, a direction that ultimately leads to discrimination against Christians?

I’m quite aware, Mr. President, that the case in England is different than the federal legislation that you signed, but having monitored the trajectory of LGBT activism for more than a decade, I can assure you that you will not win the widespread support of the LGBT community until you distance yourself from the evangelical Christians who helped elect you and who gave you wise counsel throughout your campaign. In other words, you will not be viewed as a real friend of the LGBT community until you side with gay activism at the cost of Christian liberties.

May I ask you to give these matters your prayerful consideration, inviting some of your most trusted spiritual advisors for input as well? And may I ask you, at the least, to go ahead and write the executive order we were expecting, namely the one enshrining our religious liberties?

If you put religious liberties first, it will be for the good of the nation as a whole.

If you side against these precious liberties, it will hurt the nation as a whole.

May God Himself give you wisdom. You have my prayerful support. (For more from the author of “An Appeal to the President and Vice-President to Reconsider Their LGBT Strategy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FVES_Classroom (1)

Why Congress Is Right to Undo Obama-Era Education Rules

Last week, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce took an important step toward rescinding some of the most burdensome regulations levied under the Every Student Succeeds Act (the replacement for the No Child Left Behind Act) by the Obama administration Department of Education.

Reps. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., and Todd Rokita, R-Ind., formally introduced resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act for two of the Obama administration’s prescriptive regulations: rules governing teacher preparation programs and rules governing accountability under the Every Student Succeeds Act.

These resolutions of disapproval would prevent the Department of Education from implementing the rules or any substantially similar rules without congressional approval.

As Lindsey Burke and I argued in a recent paper concerning regulatory overreach under the Every Student Succeeds Act, scrapping the law’s regulations written by the Obama administration’s Department of Education through use of the Congressional Review Act would help remove some of the prescription layered onto the act.

While congressional architects envisioned the law as a vehicle for curtailing some of the federal overreach that had been created through No Child Left Behind, the regulations were not written in the same spirit.

Rescinding these regulations is a good first step. But in addition, Congress should pursue policies that genuinely restore state and local control in education in a way that the Every Student Succeeds Act fell short of accomplishing.

Proponents hailed this education law as one that would limit power from Washington, restoring state and local control of education by eliminating many of No Child Left Behind’s onerous requirements.

However, while it eliminated provisions like Adequate Yearly Progress and Highly Qualified Teacher mandates—one-size-fits-all standards that put Washington in the driver’s seat of education—the Every Student Succeeds Act kept in place a complex federal framework of oversight and high levels of spending.

Importantly, states were not given the option to opt out of the law through reforms such as the A-PLUS (Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success) Act—a long-held conservative policy priority.

President Barack Obama’s Department of Education under Secretary John King took the prescriptive law and proceeded to write regulations that magnified that law’s shortcomings. The regulations narrowed possibilities for state flexibility, complicated decisions, increased paperwork, and generally wrapped states ever more tightly in a web of federal rules.

Ignoring statutory prohibitions, the Department of Education added qualifications to accountability indicators, dictated the methodology for weighing indicators, and inserted unnecessary reporting requirements.

Some of the rules were breathtakingly meddlesome, including one that dictated to the precise dollar amount states must invest in each school that needs improvement.

Many state boards of education, state superintendents, and other state leaders used the comment period on this accountability rule to illustrate how this level of federal prescription would negatively impact their state, their students, and their school finances.

Some state officials, like Randy Dorn, Washington state’s superintendent of public instruction, compared the rule to the draconian system under No Child Left Behind: “[I]n some instances, it seems like a return to the archaic measures required under No Child Left Behind.”

Other states, like South Dakota, suggested that the federal Department of Education was hopelessly out of touch with their needs and concerns:

We find the estimates submitted to the Office of Management and Budget to be wildly out of sync with the effort the [South Dakota Department of Education] will need to undertake to integrate data systems and report the require data. In particular, this is true because there are not decreased reporting requirements in other areas. This will be a significant feat, in particular for a state that is minimally funded and minimally staffed; the burden compliance will place on our staff should not be underestimated.

The specific needs of each state and local community cannot be met or anticipated by agency bureaucrats from Washington, D.C.

Regulations that are used to clarify points of confusion in a statute are necessary, but the use of regulation to prescribe the day-to-day operations of local schools is an overreach of federal power, particularly when the needs of each community are so unique.

The resolutions of disapproval are an important first step to limiting federal encroachment in local decision-making.

Now, Congress should take the opportunity to allow states to totally opt out of the Every Student Succeeds Act, and to put dollars toward their own state and local priorities. (For more from the author of “Why Congress Is Right to Undo Obama-Era Education Rules” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


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

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.


Love out of Tragedy: Boston Bombing Survivor Gets Engaged to Hero Firefighter

Roseann Sdoia was one of hundreds injured in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing that killed three. Mike Materia was the firefighter who rushed to her aid, stayed by her side while she was transported to the hospital, and checked on her throughout her recovery after her right leg was amputated.

Now, he’s her fiancé.

The two went on their first date two months after the bombing, Fox 5 News reported. Materia proposed in December of last year.

“I asked him if I was going to die,” Sdoia told the New York Post, recalling the day they met. “And he told me that I was going to be OK, that I only had a flesh wound.”

Materia “was so kind and caring,” she said.

On Wednesday the couple participated in the Empire State Building Run-Up, the New York Times reported. The event benefited the Challenged Athletes Foundation. Sdoia, a beneficiary of Challenged Athletes Foundation herself, climbed all 1,576 steps with her prosthetic leg. Materia completed the challenge in full firefighter gear.

Sdoia and Materia are also scheduled in March to release Perfect Strangers, a book about four people whose lives were impacted by the bombing. (For more from the author of “Love out of Tragedy: Boston Bombing Survivor Gets Engaged to Hero Firefighter” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Big Lesson From the Boy Scouts Demise: Appeasement Doesn’t Work

The Boy Scouts of America have capitulated to liberal culture. Matt Walsh called them “spineless cowards” and bid them goodbye:

Goodbye, Boy Scouts. You fools. You invertebrates. You caved once again and will now allow “transgender boys” — also known as girls — to enter your ranks. I guess you forgot that the girls already have their own branch of the Scouts. It’s called the Girl Scouts. You know, the one with the cookies. Will the Boy Scouts start selling cookies now, too? That would be one upside to all of this, at least.

Walsh is right, that the BSA is no longer the organization it was founded to be, and in fact is redundant given that girls who want to act and live as boys can now join. But I would stop short of calling them fools. They’re just appeasers who learned an old lesson: Appeasement doesn’t work.

A History Lesson on Failed Attempts at Appeasement

The BSA fell victim to appeasing antagonists and mistaking those antagonists as advocates for limited change. Those antagonists painted themselves as persecuted victims who share Scout values, but in fact they were traitors to those values. History shows over and over again that appeasing traitors always leads to defeat.

Behold the sad story of Edvard Beneš, President of Czechoslovakia from 1935-1938. He was a national socialist — a believer in a unity of Czechs and Slovak ethnic groups. He was a respected diplomat of great skill. But history made him a great fool. He faced a group of separatists he believed shared his aims and suffered genuine persecution, but the persecution was hyped and staged — led by traitor Konrad Henlein.

Henlein was the head of a political party seeking autonomy for Sudeten Germans. In fact Henlein was a Nazi agent taking his orders from Berlin. Beneš offered Henlein everything he asked for, but Henlein’s orders were to refuse all offers, as Hitler wanted to annex Czechoslovakia. British PM Neville Chamberlain’s visit to Munich capped the appeasement, but didn’t stop the ever-growing demands.

Beneš was forced from office in October 1938, after Henlein fled to Berlin. The Germans replaced Beneš with a Nazi puppet, and the Wehrmacht rolled into Prague unopposed.

The Boy Scouts Ignored Their Most Important Weapon: Biblical Truth

Now that the Boy Scouts have capitulated, they will be annexed by liberal culture. Some churches, which have already been annexed, will continue to support the organization. The Cub Scout “transgender crisis” in New Jersey was nothing more than the ever-growing demands of a culture that refuses to be appeased, but wants to occupy and annex everything.

By the time that crisis came along, the ending was already written. When, in 2013, the BSA abandoned a Supreme Court ruling that gave them the right to exclude gay Scouts and leaders from their organization, they surrendered. Unlike Czechoslovakia, which lacked the weapons to stop Germany, the Boy Scouts had a super weapon, and they gave it up.

Why? Because they were scared of losing funding. They were scared of losing relevance, and they were scared of shrinking, like the culture they previously supported. As church attendance and Biblical adherence declined, the Scouts declined with it. They believed that they lacked the weapons to fight the culture, when in fact they had two unassailable weapons: Biblical moral truth, and a Supreme Court decision in their favor.

Once the BSA abandoned their strong defense, the end was inevitable. The culture would not be appeased. Gay Scouts turned into gay leaders. Then that turned into a “transgender crisis.”

Time to Say Goodbye

Walsh is right that soon we’ll see liberal indoctrination in the Boy Scouts. Christian values and absolute morals will be tossed and replaced with relativism and “many truths.” The definitions of family, gender, and manhood will become a muddled mess of validation versus truth. The Bible will be held in contempt or twisted to liberal ends.

What will they teach boys to prepare them to be men? Camping, knot tying and woodsman skills were never the point of what the Scouts taught. They taught values. The activities served to reinforce those values and cement them into boys’ psyches. Positive peer pressure and group bonding is a powerful teaching tool. The Scouts may keep doing the same activities, but the lessons will be completely different.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts merged at some point, given that there’s no longer a difference. To the Scouts’ new masters, teaching “gender roles” is prudish and oppressive.

Christians must now avoid and withdraw from the Boy Scouts. The organization, through appeasement, has been thoroughly annexed and handed over to the God-mocking liberal culture of the day. Better to choose Trail Life USA, Royal Rangers, or some other Christ-centered mentoring program that teaches boys to be Godly men.

The lesson cannot be more clearly delivered. Appeasement doesn’t work. Persecution is part of the package for Christians. We must never abandon the truth. (For more from the author of “The Big Lesson From the Boy Scouts Demise: Appeasement Doesn’t Work” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Will GOP Keep Its Promise to Defund Planned Parenthood?

A number of promises were made to pro-life voters in 2016, not the least of which was that if given control of Congress, Republicans would defund the country’s largest abortion provided, Planned Parenthood.

But the only way for the GOP to keep that pledge is by passing the reconciliation bill to repeal Obamacare. The longer Republican leaders delay that effort, the less likely either defunding Planned Parenthood or fully repealing Obamacare will actually happen.

We spoke with pro-life activists participating in the recent 44th annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., who said they expect the GOP to keep its campaign promises.

(For more from the author of “Will GOP Keep Its Promise to Defund Planned Parenthood?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Nebraska Woman Loses Health Insurance for Fourth Time Under Obamacare

Pamela Weldin’s experiences with Obamacare can be boiled down to just a few numbers.

Since the health care law’s implementation three years ago, Weldin, 60, has lost her insurance four different times.

And the Nebraska woman is currently enrolled in her fifth new insurance policy in four years.

“Yet again, and through no fault of my own,” Weldin told The Daily Signal. “I’m just sitting here minding my own business, and here we go again.”

A former dental hygienist, Weldin has all the hallmarks of a consumer intended to benefit from the Affordable Care Act.

She has been denied coverage in the past because of a pre-existing condition related to her career as a dental hygienist.

Additionally, Weldin qualifies for a tax credit, which she has received every year since 2014.

As a result, her premiums are low when compared to consumers who don’t qualify for financial assistance: In early 2015, Weldin purchased a plan through Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska that cost her $232 each month.

This year, premiums for her silver-level plan with Medica are $161 per month after her tax credit. Without the financial assistance, her premiums would total more than $1,300 per month.

But though Weldin has benefited from aspects of the law, she hasn’t been immune to the changes in the health insurance market that have occurred in last few years.

“I’m a person who has been denied because of pre-existing conditions,” Weldin, a Pampered Chef director, said. “I’m on Obamacare and have lost my insurance four times in three years. I understand the challenges, but it’s not sustainable.”

Weldin’s Journey

Since opened for business in the fall of 2013, four policies sold by three different insurance companies—Humana, CoOportunity Health, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska—that Weldin purchased were ultimately terminated.

The Daily Signal previously covered her experiences with Obamacare in a February 2015 article.

But since then—when Weldin lost her insurance for a third time—she’s logged another cancellation.

First, Weldin’s initial policy with Humana, which she held for several years, was canceled in the lead-up to Obamacare’s implementation in January 2014.

The Nebraska woman then purchased a platinum-level plan for 2014 through CoOportunity Health, a consumer operated and oriented plan, or co-op. But CoOportunity Health terminated her platinum-level policy for 2015 after the co-op decided it would no longer offer those policies.

Weldin, though, decided to stick with CoOportunity Health and selected a silver-level plan for 2015.

On Jan. 23, 2015, Weldin received a notice from the co-op notifying her that it was going out of business. CoOportunity far outpaced its initial enrollment projections, and its customers racked up medical expenses that far outpaced what they paid in premiums.

Weldin had no choice but to select a new insurer and policy, and purchased coverage through Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska for the remainder of 2015 and 2016—a plan that, though a bit more expensive, allowed her to see her original doctor.

Late last year, though, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska announced it would no longer sell coverage on the exchange in the state.

“This system is collapsing under its own weight,” Weldin said, “like the co-ops and basic companies like Blue Cross pulling out of Nebraska.”

To ensure she would be covered for 2017, Weldin went to to select a plan that allowed her to see her current doctor in Colorado.

In Nebraska, consumers on the exchange had just two insurance companies to choose from: Aetna and Medica.

A policy through Aetna was more expensive than its competitor, but because Weldin thought her doctor was considered in-network, she selected a plan through that insurer.

It wasn’t until after she paid her first month’s premium, however, that Weldin learned from the insurance company that any doctor located more than 100 miles from her rural Nebraska home wasn’t in her network.

If she wanted to see her doctor in Colorado—considered out-of-network now—Weldin had to meet a $20,000 out-of-network deductible before Aetna would start covering her medical expenses.

That information, she said, wasn’t listed on when she was shopping for plans.

“$20,000 for a deductible? Are you kidding me?” Weldin said. “How is that affordable?”

Speaking Volumes

Across the country, millions of Americans faced higher premiums heading into 2017.

And premium hikes have been well documented by The Daily Signal and others.

Less attention, however, has been paid to the number of insurers and plans available to consumers.

According to an October report from the Department of Health and Human Services, insurer participation in Nebraska decreased from four insurers in 2016 to two in 2017.

And consumers nationwide aren’t just seeing a decline in the number of insurance companies selling coverage on the exchange in their states.

The federal government reported that Americans would also see a decrease in the number of plans insurers offered in 2017.

In Nebraska, there was an average of 18 fewer plans per county available on the exchange to consumers this year. Nebraskans purchasing plans on in 2017 had 13 plans to choose from, down from 31 last year.

“That speaks volumes in terms of ultimate consumer benefits,” Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., told The Daily Signal of the change in insurers selling plans in his state. “Fewer choices most often means higher prices and less quality.”

In 2015, Smith introduced a bill to exempt consumers like Weldin who purchased coverage from a failed co-op from the individual mandate. The legislation passed the House, but stalled in the Senate.

Now, Smith and other Republicans—who have spent six years talking about repealing Obamacare—are looking to check the box on a major campaign promise.

Republicans have taken the initial step toward dismantling the health care law after passing a budget resolution earlier this month, and often cite the experiences of Americans like Weldin to bolster their arguments that Obamacare needs to be repealed and replaced.

But despite their control over Congress and the White House, Republican lawmakers differ on their approaches to unwinding Obamacare.

Conservatives are urging GOP leadership to move forward with repeal as soon as possible and say they’re frustrated with the speed at which their leaders are moving to dismantle the health care law.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said last week repeal would be slated for March or April.

“I’d like to see an acceleration of the front-end repeal side,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Wednesday at a monthly gathering with reporters. “Let’s get rid of [Obamacare]. That’s what we told the voters that we were going to do.”

Jordan was joined by other Republicans who said they want to see GOP leadership move faster on Obamacare repeal.

“I, too, am frustrated with the pace,” Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., said Wednesday. “We need to not only be against the [Affordable Care Act] or Obamacare, which I am for a myriad of reasons … but we also, if not for political reasons, but for the reason that our constituents and America needs to know what we stand for. We should vote on something.”

But during a gathering last week of House and Senate lawmakers in Philadelphia, other Republicans showed tepid support for dismantling the law and even expressed doubts over their party’s plans to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Though the GOP agrees that the law needs to be scrapped, members haven’t yet concurred on whether to repeal major parts of Obamacare like its taxes. Many also want to see Congress move a replacement at the same time they repeal the law.

Still, Smith, the Nebraska congressman, points to Americans like Weldin as a reason why Congress needs to act.

“When you look at the overall picture, [Obamacare] has failed miserably and will continue to cause great damage,” Smith said. “That’s why we need to step in.”

“We want to prevent further pain that we know will happen if we just let Obamacare sit the way it is,” he continued.

‘Not Sustainable’

After learning about her $20,000 out-of-pocket deductible, Weldin contacted to seek assistance with purchasing another plan.

A representative there was able to enroll her in a new policy with Medica, and Weldin learned that her doctor was, in fact, included in the new plan’s network.

This year, the Nebraska woman will pay $161 per month in premiums after a tax credit.

Weldin is one of the more than 9 million Americans who receives a tax credit and has been relatively immune to the increased costs of health insurance, but she still wants to see changes made to the health care system.

“Allow us the choice of what kind of policy and coverage suits our needs,” she said. “Allow us the choice of deductible and to cross state lines for provider care so we can choose and keep our own doctors. Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines so we have more options and have more choice of providers.”

And Weldin said she recognizes that any action Republicans take on Obamacare could very well lead to further changes with her insurance and the health insurance market.

Still, she said she wants to have additional choices, even it means more coming out of her pocketbook.

“Something has to be done because this is not sustainable,” Weldin said. “I’m fine paying a little bit more if it’s what I need. But let me choose a policy that’s appropriate for my needs. Let me have a policy that’s appropriate to my medical needs. Let me choose a deductible that’s appropriate for my budget.” (For more from the author of “Nebraska Woman Loses Health Insurance for Fourth Time Under Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Question the Left Won’t Answer on Abortion

If there weren’t, well, lives at stake, Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell’s dodging of Fox News’ Tucker Carlson’s questions about whether abortion was the taking of a human life would be comical.

Just check out how often Swalwell (who is, of course, from California) dodged it in an appearance Tuesday night (transcript omits some cross chatter):

Carlson: Do you think it is the taking of a human life, abortion?

Swalwell: I think that, right now … before viability, a woman should be able to make her own decision. After viability, in the case of her own psychological health, in the case of rape or incest, she should also be able to make that decision.

Carlson: OK, but is it the taking of a human life?

Swalwell: That is a woman’s personal decision.

Carlson: OK, but what do you think? I’m not asking about the decision, I mean is it human life or not?

Swalwell: She’s terminating something that she does not want, and that’s her own choice.

Carlson: OK, but do you think it’s human life?

Swalwell: Do I think—I think, at viability, a baby … should be decided by the woman. She’s the one who has to have it.

Carlson: You brought it up, that’s why I’m pressing you, but do you think, before viability, it’s a human life or something else?

Swalwell: I think it’s not viable yet, Tucker, and courts have decided this and it’s a woman’s decision.

Carlson: You’re not going to answer my question, now or ever I suspect, but you should because it’s a basic question I think.

This is … a muddled mess of illogical thinking.

And it really gets to the gist of the abortion debate, which is this: Is the unborn baby human or not, and if not human, at what point does she become human?

Because after all, if the baby isn’t human, it’s irrelevant if women want to have abortions, just as it’s irrelevant if they want to remove tumors or a few cells or have any other number of medical procedures.

But if the baby is human … it’s horrifying that our society wouldn’t protect her life, just because she’s in a vulnerable, dependent position.

Yet this is the question over and over again that the left won’t deal with.

Maybe they won’t deal with it because it threatens their current abortion policies. After all, it’s risible to argue that a full-term baby isn’t human in the womb, and yet acquires humanity passing through the birth canal.

Yet our current laws act like that is the case. Right now, the United States is one of only seven countries in the entire world that allows abortion on demand after 20 weeks.

As President Donald Trump— who pledged during his campaign to make the late-term abortion ban the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act law—bluntly put it in one of his debates with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby.”

Incidentally, that’s not a position that aligns with most Americans’ viewpoints: A mere 27 percent of Americans think that abortion should be allowed beyond the first three months, outside of rape/incest/life-of-the-mother situations, according to a January Marist poll sponsored by the Catholic organization Knights of Columbus.

It’s not surprising that Americans aren’t comfortable with abortion during all nine months. The increasingly prevalence of ultrasounds has made seeing unborn babies much more vivid than it was in decades past.

And the age at which unborn babies are viable is steadily lowering: In 2011, a baby born at 21 weeks survived in Germany, according to Time.

There’s no doubt that women who face unexpected pregnancies, particularly women in difficult circumstances, have a tough situation. There’s much as a culture that we can—and should—do to help support these women, whether it’s helping them financially or emotionally or in other ways. Thankfully, there are private organizations across the country that do just that—and deserve our support.

It’s irrelevant what the courts think about when life becomes human. It’s irrelevant what abortion activists think about when life becomes human.

What is relevant is science—which tells us that an unborn child has her own unique DNA at the moment of conception.

If Swalwell doesn’t think unborn babies are human, he should say that (and be ready to explain why having your own unique DNA and being able to grow into an adult human aren’t signs of being human).

But if he does think that unborn babies are human or are human at the time they are viable, he should realize it’s time to demand justice for those babies and their right to life, no matter how tragic the circumstances in which their lives began.

Nor is it just Swalwell who refuses to take this question seriously. When House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was asked a similar line of questions in 2015, she refused to answer:

CNS News: In reference to funding for Planned Parenthood: Is an unborn baby with a human heart and a human liver a human being?

Pelosi: Why don’t you take your ideological questions—I don’t, I don’t have—

CNS News: If it’s not a human being, what species is it?

Pelosi: No, listen, I want to say something to you. I don’t know who you are and you’re welcome to be here, freedom of this press. I am a devout practicing Catholic, a mother of five children. When my baby was born, my fifth child, my oldest child was six years old. I think I know more about this subject than you, with all due respect.

CNS News: So it’s not a human being, then?

Pelosi: And I do not intend to respond to your questions, which have no basis in what public policy is that we do here.

If you’re going to make public policy about who lives and dies, it’s relevant who is human and who’s not. Sadly, that doesn’t seem to be something many on the left agree with. (For more from the author of “The Question the Left Won’t Answer on Abortion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Trump Taps Evangelist Jerry Falwell Jr. To Lead Higher Education Task Force

President Donald Trump has tapped Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. to lead a White House task force on improving higher education.

Falwell, one of the country’s most prominent evangelical leaders, endorsed Trump in January 2016, just days before the Iowa caucuses, which were the first votes cast in the presidential election cycle.

His support led Trump to victory in the Republican primary and the general election, with 80 percent of white evangelicals choosing for president the GOP leader last November.

Now, NBC News is reporting that Falwell will play an official role in the Trump White House.
The Liberty University president will specifically look at ‘overregulation and micromanagement of higher education,’ according to university spookesman Len Stevens. (Read more from “Trump Taps Evangelist Jerry Falwell Jr. To Lead Higher Education Task Force” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.