PEACE PRIZE! Hillary Approved Massive Arms Sale to Arab State Only After Clinton Foundation Bribe Donation

Yesterday Judicial Watch released emails showing that a Crown Prince of Bahrain was able to secure a meeting with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton through the Clinton Foundation — after being rejected by official State Department channels. Today, the International Business Times follows up on that report by revealing that the timing of this meeting lined up with a sudden, and large, increase in arms sales to Bahrain. Furthermore, this increase came in spite of Bahrain being engaged in massive human rights abuses and suppression of peaceful civilian protests. Finally, Hillary Clinton’s lawyers destroyed the emails documenting this meeting without turning them over to the State Department. These were among the emails destroyed as allegedly “personal.”

Now, Bahrain is an important regional ally of the United States. The US 5th Fleet, also called NAVCENT as it is the fleet permanently assigned to US Central Command, is based out of Bahrain’s harbors. Bahrain would thus ordinarily enjoy some US military arms sales, as well as occasional access to high level State Department officials. However, in this case the State Department had already turned down the request for a meeting when it came through official channels. So, Crown Prince Salman contacted the Clinton Foundation to ask them to get him a meeting anyway.

And they did.

Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band personally contacted Hillary Clinton’s right hand woman, Huma Abedin, to request that she arrange the meeting in spite of official refusal. Band described Crown Prince Salman as a “Good friend of ours,” and he certainly was that. The Judicial Watch release details that Salman arranged more than thirty million dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation. From the perspective of the State Department, he was just another Arab prince. From the perspective of the Clinton Foundation, he was a good friend who needed special treatment. He got it. (For more from the author of “PEACE PRIZE! Hillary Approved Massive Arms Sale to Arab State Only After Clinton Foundation Bribe Donation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Facing High Labor Costs From Minimum Wage Hikes, Chicago Restaurant Closes

A Chicago restaurant abruptly closed this week, with ownership blaming the “rapidly changing labor market” and a 27 percent increase in base minimum wage costs over the last two years as culprits for the collapse.

Cantina 1910, a farm-to-table Mexican restaurant located in Chicago’s Andersonville neighborhood, opened in September 2015.

Former Cantina 1910 employees said they were shocked to find out late Sunday evening of the closing, DNAinfo reported.

“We are unable to further raise prices in this competitive restaurant market in order to sustain the labor costs necessary to operate Cantina 1910,” Mark Robertson and Mike Sullivan, Cantina 1910’s owners, said in an emailed statement to The Daily Signal.

In December 2014, the Chicago City Council passed an ordinance to raise the city’s minimum wage from $8.25 an hour to $13 an hour by 2019. The minimum wage for nontipped employees went up to $10.50 an hour on July 1.

“Unfortunately, the rapidly changing labor market for the hospitality industry has resulted in immediate, substantial increases in payroll expenses that we could not absorb through price increases,” the restaurant’s owners said. “In the last two years, we have seen a 27 percent increase in the base minimum wage, a 60 percent increase in kitchen wages, and a national shortage of skilled culinary workers.”

The owners say they “do not see a path forward” with mandatory paid sick leave and minimum wage set to increase in 2017. They stated:

As we look down the road, we are facing a Dec. 1 change in federal labor regulations that will nearly double required salaries for managers to qualify as exempt, a 2017 mandatory sick leave requirement and another minimum wage increase. Coupled with increasing Chicago and Cook County taxes and fees that disproportionately impact commercial properties and businesses, we are operating in an environment in which we do not see a path forward.

Raising the minimum wage was a “much needed” and “an essential step in making sure that hard work pays off for all of our residents,” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat and President Barack Obama’s former chief of staff, said in a July 2015 statement.

Employment in the Chicago area’s leisure and hospitality sector sunk to a five-year low, according to government data, after a $1.75 an hour minimum wage hike went into effect in July 2015, Investor’s Business Daily’s Jed Graham wrote this past January.

“The law of demand states that when prices rise, customers buy fewer goods or services,” James Sherk, a research fellow in labor economics at The Heritage Foundation, says. “Cantina 1910’s closing is another demonstration that this economic law applies to businesses too.

“Chicago raised mandatory starting wages in the city, but the restaurant could not afford to stay in business at those prices. So it closed and all its employees lost their jobs. Heritage Foundation analysis finds that if Illinois mandated $15/hour starting wages this would cost over 300,000 jobs statewide.” (For more from the author of “Facing High Labor Costs From Minimum Wage Hikes, Chicago Restaurant Closes” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Next Steps on the Road to Brexit

Britain’s vote to leave the European Union on June 23 was a milestone in the history of the United Kingdom, and of the defense of British freedom and sovereignty. But it was also just the start of securing Britain’s independence. It is one thing to vote to stand on your own two feet, it is another thing to do it.

Since the vote, Britain has put in place a new government, led by Prime Minister Theresa May, with many prominent leaders of the “leave” campaign—including former London Mayor Boris Johnson and former Defense Secretary Liam Fox—in key positions, with Johnson taking the foreign secretary job.

Fox’s position, as the head of the new ministry for international trade, is particularly significant. Ever since it joined the EU in 1973, Britain hasn’t been able to negotiate its own trade treaties. When Britain leaves the EU, it will recover that right.

It’s vital that Britain rebuild the necessary negotiating expertise, and equally vital that this job be held by an outward-looking and senior figure in the governing Conservative Party, who, like Fox, fully backed Britain’s exit from the EU.

So far, prominent government officials or business leaders in at least 27 nations—including eight of the 10 largest economies in the world—have backed negotiating a trade deal with Britain. And the British economy, far from collapsing in the aftermath of the vote, has seen unemployment fall and sales surge.

But though Britain has voted to leave the EU, it has yet to take the necessary first formal step: to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union, and commence formal negotiations on the terms of Britain’s withdrawal. It’s now possible that Article 50 might not be invoked until mid-2017, a worrying delay.

Then, as Britain negotiates, it will need to repeal the British laws that brought Britain into the EU in the first place. Finally, it will have to establish a mechanism to review the entire body of EU law that now operates in Britain. There’s so much of this that Parliament will have to find a way to streamline the process—conducting a line-by-line review would take an eternity.

Then there are a host of vital questions for particular sectors of the economy. The British government has already announced that it will continue to pay farming and scientific subsidies until 2020, but what happens after that is still unclear. Similarly, there is the issue of what should happen to the EU citizens who were legally employed in Britain on June 23, and the reciprocal question about the rights of British subjects who were working on, or who retired to, the Continent.

Beyond all these questions is a final, vital one: What kind of relationship should Britain seek to have with the EU after it leaves? Some Brexit supporters want to stay in the European Economic Area, which would allow Britain to keep its current access to the EU’s single market.

Others, however, point out that being in the European Economic Area means being subject to the EU’s rules, contributing to the EU’s budget, and allowing free movement of labor from the EU. In other words, it means keeping most of the things that British voters rejected on June 23. The alternative, therefore, is for Britain to become completely independent, and to negotiate a trade deal with the EU from outside the economic area.

In short, many uncertainties remain. But believers in free markets and free peoples have been thinking about these problems for years. Indeed, in 2013, the Institute of Economic Affairs, a leading free-market think tank in London, held a competition to find the best plan for Britain after Brexit.

We are delighted to welcome the joint authors of one of the prize-winning essays from the Institute of Economic Affairs’ competition, Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Rory Broomfield of the Freedom Association and its Better Off Out campaign, to The Heritage Foundation to present an updated edition of their plan, “Cutting the Gordian Knot: A Road Map for British Exit from the European Union,” on Wednesday, Aug. 24, at 1 p.m.

Joining the authors will be Marian L. Tupy, of the Cato Institute, who will comment on the plan, and Victoria Coates, national security adviser to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who will offer Capitol Hill’s perspective on Brexit and the future of Anglo-American relations after June 23.

Please join us on Wednesday for a look, from both British and American perspectives, at the next steps in achieving Britain’s independence from the EU and making Brexit a reality. (For more from the author of “The Next Steps on the Road to Brexit” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Abedin Emails Reveal Most Damning Evidence Against Clinton’s State Department Yet

Among the 725 pages of new State Department documents released by Judicial Watch Monday were previously unreleased email exchanges that further expose how Hillary Clinton’s top aides and her State Department engaged in pay-for-play politics with the Clinton Foundation.

The press release from Judicial Watch includes 20 Hillary Clinton email exchanges that were not previously turned over to the State Department. The documents reveal that Clinton’s right-hand woman Huma Abedin “provided influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the Secretary of State.”

The Abedin emails reveal that the longtime Clinton aide apparently served as a conduit between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton while Clinton served as secretary of state. In more than a dozen email exchanges, Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In many instances, Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation throughout Hillary Clinton’s tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin. In Abedin’s June deposition to Judicial Watch, she conceded that part of her job at the State Department was taking care of “Clinton family matters.”

Examples abound of times Abedin acted as a go-between for Clinton Foundation and the State Department. In one instance she and Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band set up a meeting for the Crown Prince of Bahrain after he was declined a meeting with Clinton via the “normal channels” of the State Department process. Crown Prince Salman had donated between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

Another time, Band asked Abedin to secure a visa for members of the Woverhampton (UK) Football Club when one member was having a difficulty because of a “criminal charge.” According to Judicial Watch, “Band was acting at the behest of millionaire Hollywood sports entertainment executive and president of the Wasserman Foundation Casey Wasserman. Wasserman has donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation through the Wasserman Foundation.”

Those are only two of multiple recorded examples of pay-for-play politics found in Judicial Watch’s report.

“These new emails confirm that Hillary Clinton abused her office by selling favors to Clinton Foundation donors,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “There needs to be a serious, independent investigation to determine whether Clinton and others broke the law.”

Fitton went live on Facebook Monday afternoon to discuss these revelations and the imminent court-ordered release of 14,900 more previously undisclosed Clinton emails.

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated—even under oath—that she believes that the 55,000 pages of documents her lawyers turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails, nearly 30,000 total. Judicial Watch claims Abedin’s emails and the soon-to-be-released 14,900 additional emails are “at odds with [Clinton’s] official campaign statement suggesting all ‘work or potentially work-related emails’ were provided to the State Department.”

House Republicans are currently urging the Justice Department to pursue allegations of perjury against Sec. Clinton. Clinton could be convicted of perjury should the DOJ find she intentionally misled Congress under oath.

Even if she evades conviction again, how will the American people respond to these revelations with 78 days until the election? (For more from the author of “New Abedin Emails Reveal Most Damning Evidence Against Clinton’s State Department Yet” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LIE-FEST 2016: Clinton Spokesman Denies Huma Abedin Edited Islamonazi Magazine She Edited

When in doubt, assume your audience is stupid and lie to them. It worked for Hillary Clinton and Anthony Weiner, the two people closest to Huma. So why not give it a try? That seems to be the reasoning here.

Top Hillary Clinton confidante Huma Abedin played no formal role in a radical Muslim journal — even though she was listed as an editor on the hate-filled periodical’s masthead for a dozen years, a campaign rep claimed Sunday.

“My understanding is that her name was simply listed on the masthead in that period,” Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said hours after The Post broke the bombshell story. “She did not play a role in editing at the publication.”

Merrill said Abedin was just a figurehead and not actually on staff at the Saudi-based and -funded Journal of Minority Muslim Affairs, which featured radically anti-feminist views and backed strict Islamic laws roundly criticized for oppressing women…

…Her brother, who was an associate editor, and a sister, also employed as an assistant editor, are listed as staff members.

Abedin’s Pakistani mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, remains editor-in-chief…

So, despite being listed for a dozen years as an editor, Huma Abedin never actually edited the magazine. So why was her name on there? Did she happen to know that her name was on there?

Is the Journal in the habit of listing people’s names as editors who don’t edit it. And how does someone no one has heard of get a position as a figurehead anyway?

These lies are positively Clintonesque in their clumsiness and implausibility. (For more from the author of “LIE-FEST 2016: Clinton Spokesman Denies Huma Abedin Edited Islamonazi Magazine She Edited” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Readies One Last Push for Trans-Pacific Partnership

His successor, whether Democrat or Republican, opposes it, as does most of his party. Delegates at the Democratic National Convention waved signs saying “T.P.P.” slashed by a bold line, while the Republican Party platform opposed any vote on it in Congress this year.

Yet President Obama is readying one final push for approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the largest regional trade agreement ever, between the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations. And though the odds may be long, a presidency defined by partisan stalemate may yet secure one last legacy — only because of Mr. Obama’s delicate alliance with the Republicans who control Congress.

“Both parties have candidates who have very strong rhetoric against trade,” said Representative Kevin Brady, Republican of Texas and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which is responsible for trade. “Nonetheless, we can’t grow America’s economy unless we’re not merely buying American but selling American all throughout the globe.” (Read more from “Obama Readies One Last Push for Trans-Pacific Partnership” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Tricare Now Covering Transgender Treatment Options

The U.S. military’s Tricare health care system now covers transgender military family members and retirees, despite the official policy not yet going live, a top official said.

“I’m not going to wait for the final policy,” Navy Vice Adm. Raquel Bono, head of the Defense Health Agency, said in a wide-ranging interview with Military.com on Thursday atJoint Base Elmendorf-Richardson . . .

The policy, published for public comment in the Federal Register in February, will allow for hormone therapy and mental health counseling for “gender dysphoria,” the clinical term for those who identify as a different gender than the sex they were assigned at birth. Tricare is prohibited by law from covering sex-change surgery.

A ban on openly serving transgender troops was lifted by Defense Department officials in June. By Oct. 1, officials will issue a handbook for commanders and all those affected by the new policy, as well as medical guidance for providing transition care to transgender troops. As part of the new policy, military medical facilities will provide hormone treatment, counseling and sex-change surgery when deemed “medically necessary” . . .

In the meantime, Bono said, Tricare is working with its regional contractors to grant approval for transgender treatment that will be covered under the new policy. If the contractor will not approve it, the admiral said she will do so herself. (Read more from “Tricare Now Covering Transgender Treatment Options” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Coalition Jets Scrambled to Defend U.S. Forces From Syrian Bombing

A U.S.-led coalition sent aircraft into northeastern Syria on Thursday in a “very unusual” move to protect American special operation ground forces from attacks by Syrian government jets, a Pentagon official said on Friday.

Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis told reporters the coalition aircraft reached the area around the city of Hasaka as the two Syrian SU-24s were leaving, and the U.S. special operation forces were in the area where the strikes were taking place. He said the Syrian planes did not respond to efforts by ground forces to contact them.

Davis said he was not aware of any other instances where coalition aircraft had been scrambled to respond to Syrian government bombing.

“This is very unusual, we have not seen the regime take this kind of action against YPG before,” Davis said, using an acronym for the Syrian Kurdish fighters . . .

On Friday, two Syrian aircraft tried to pass through the airspace around Hasaka, but left without incident when they were met by coalition fighter jets. The coalition fighter jets were F-22 aircraft and came within 1 mile (1.6 km)of the Syrian planes. (Read more from “Coalition Jets Scrambled to Defend U.S. Forces From Syrian Bombing” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Global Poor Aren’t Dominated by Markets — They’re Excluded From Them

Religious and political leaders often talk about how poor people are dominated by markets, and how we need to protect the poor in the developing world from the crushing effects of globalization. The reality is that the poor aren’t dominated by markets. They’re excluded from them.

When Pope Francis said we must say “no to an economy of exclusion and inequality,” he underscored the fundamental problem that the poor face today: They’re disconnected and excluded from the institutions of justice that would enable them to create prosperity in their own communities.

Our immediate reaction to statements like this can be to gather and send money or goods overseas, or to focus on taxation/redistribution policies aimed at eradicating inequality. But these reactions miss the deeper sources of injustice — things like a lack of access to justice in the courts, an absence of clear title to land, or the inability to register a business.

Where the poor have gained these things in cultures around the world, they have lifted themselves out of poverty by the hundreds of millions. Where they have been denied these things, they have remained mired in extreme poverty, generation after generation.

Reform is possible. Unleashing the creative capacity of the poor is possible. But getting there requires overcoming at least four key challenges.

1. The Current System Benefits the Wealthy and Well-Connected.

Many of the powerful and wealthy don’t have an economic incentive to build institutions of justice like clear title to land or broad access to the formal economy. They are doing well under the status quo and many of them are actually benefiting from the current situation through connections, access to special privileges, bribes and sweetheart deals on things like mineral rights.

The point here isn’t to critique everyone who is privileged and well-connected in developing countries. Rather it’s to point out that pure economic incentive is not enough to build inclusive institutions. There must be a moral and spiritual motivation and a change of heart, as well as a hunger for justice that only a spiritual conversion can bring about.

2. Many are Fixated on the Bugbear of “Unfettered Capitalism.”

A second challenge to justice and inclusion for the poor is the widespread misconception that “unfettered capitalism” is the source of our economic troubles. This is a common refrain from politicians, celebrities and religious leaders, and even, unfortunately, from business professors.

I once participated in a panel discussion about capitalism at the Academy of Management. Accompanying me on the panel was a European professor from a prestigious Ivy League business school who argued that the biggest problem we face is unfettered capitalism — not crony capitalism, but unfettered capitalism. He said this several times, so I finally pressed him to give an actual example of where such unfettered capitalism exists. Of course he could not.

In Europe, on average 40% of GDP is made up of government spending. We often hear about the brutal Anglo-American model, but the U.S. is not much different from Europe: Government spending is close to 40% of GDP, with a government debt to GDP ratio of over 100%. In the last several years, thousands of new regulations have been added. Corporate tax rates are at 39%, the highest among OECD countries, and with personal rates, five of the seven brackets are at 25% or more, with a top bracket of 39% to help pay for all this spending. Even the original Keynesian, John Maynard Keynes — a proponent of government interventions in the market — once commented in a letter (to Colin Clark, May 1, 1944) that he thought the highest tolerable limit of taxation was around 25%.

The problem is that, while the unfettered capitalism we hear so much about does not really exist — and is a distraction from the real issue which is, more often than not, crony capitalism and oligarchy — an economy controlled from the top down benefits politicians and corporate insiders, and excludes the poor.

3. Populist Policies and Populist Rhetoric Distract.

A third and related challenge is that populist programs and populist rhetoric distract from building an economy that allows the poor to enter the formal economy and create wealth through business enterprise. A majority of countries throughout world create burdensome and exclusionary rules that harm the poor, but they enact one or two high profile populist programs that make it look like they care for the poor. Then they try to shift the blame to others to mask the obstacles and exclusionary policies they create.

India, for example, provides up to 100 days of paid labor for the poorest, which makes the state look benevolent. But if instead the government built institutions of justice, if they didn’t suffocate the poor under corruption and cronyism, then the government wouldn’t need to offer the subsidy. The poor would be able to find work that paid better, and they would have the dignity of knowing they were taking care of their families, not dependent on the benevolence of the state.

It has been a classic Latin American strategy to blame some other outside force for its own problems. Whether it is neoliberalism or hidden interests, or U.S. foreign policy, the cause of poverty is always something from outside. While the U.S. and Europe are not blameless, the main reason for poverty in Latin America is bad governmental policies of the right and the left that enrich a few at the expense of the majority. It’s important to unmask this deception so people understand the root of the problem.

4. The Idea That Charity, and Not Business, is the Solution to Poverty Misleads.

Charity and concern for the poor is essential. There will always be poverty and human need, and, as Benedict XVI wrote in Deus Caritas Est, this requires a response of love. The state cannot solve all our problems. Neither can economic development alone. There will always be the need for human love and care for the widow and the orphan. But at the same time, for the majority of the world’s poor, the long-term problem is they are excluded from the institutions of justice that would enable them to create prosperity in their own families and communities.

The challenge of global poverty is complex. Thoughtful economic and legal reforms are necessary, but so too are spiritual transformation, moral clarity and a hunger for justice rooted in prudence, charity and truth. One of the first things we need to do is identify the problems correctly. (For more from the author of “The Global Poor Aren’t Dominated by Markets — They’re Excluded From Them” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Anti-Christian Bias of Many Scientists Harms Science Itself

Last year Jean Decety and others published a study arguing that religious people tend to be less generous than others. It was paraded in many online journals as evidence of religion making people worse than they would be without it. A Google search will return many articles touting this research as proof of religious selfishness.

It did not warrant the attention. Not long after its publication I pointed out some fatal flaws in the study. In fact it was worse than I realized: I did not know at the time just how badly flawed it really was. Recently, other researchers have discovered that the original researchers did not code a key variable correctly. (For the statistically trained, I would add that the researchers coded a categorical variable — country kids lived in — as a continuous variable.) In all of my years of reading academic articles, I have never seen this mistake in a peer reviewed journal until now.

If I had a doctoral student make this mistake on a paper, I would wonder if he or she had ever taken a graduate level statistical course. Had I known the original author made such a basic mistake, I would have been harsher in my assessment.

Political Bias Skewing Scientific Responses

Still it got enormous positive attention. I contrast the support the media gave this flawed study to their response to Mark Regnerus’s work on same-sex parenting. Regnerus found evidence that children raised in same-sex parenting households may not fare as well as those in opposite-sex parenting households. For his efforts, his work was audited by an outsider critic (a most unusual move) and an investigation was requested by LGBT activists.

The American Sociological Association also went out of its way to criticize his study in a legal brief. There are activists who basically have made it their mission to try to make his life miserable. This in spite of the fact that at least some of his findings have been substantiated by other researchers.

I suspect we really do not know the full effects of same-sex parenting; we need more work to have a better sense of it. I also know that most properly conducted research has shown religious individuals to be more generous than non-religious individuals. However, my point is not that Regnerus is correct and Decety is wrong. My major point is the different way these research projects have been treated.

If Decety’s work had been scrutinized the same way as Regnerus’s work has been, we would have found his error much sooner. The study would have been quickly discredited, as it deserved to be, instead of being promoted on websites across the land.

So why were these two studies treated so differently? There is only one reason: bias. There are weaknesses in Regnerus’s work, but they pale in comparison to the miscoding miscue in Decety’s work, not to mention the other problems detailed by myself and others. So it’s not the quality of the studies that explain their differential treatments. You can put that argument to bed. One study sheds a bad light on religious persons, the other on same-sex couples; and that difference alone determined which one was more strongly critiqued.

Christians Who Distrust Science May Have Good Reasons

Within the Christian community there is a problem of mistrusting science. Part of the problem is internal: There are Christians with an anti-intellectual attitude. This is something we must confront. However, many Christians also have recognized the poor manner in which many in academia have treated them, in particular misusing the mantle of science to score political points against them. While Christians are sometimes too suspicious of scholarship, seeing conspiracy when it is not there, what we see in this Regnerus-Decety comparison is evidence that some of the mistrust is warranted.

In theory science should be a dispassionate arbiter, an objective guide in our attempts to learn about social and physical reality. Having reasons not to trust those who engage in this process makes it harder for Christians to appreciate science’s full benefits. This mistrust combined with the evidence that they will be denied a fair shake in academia at least partially explains why Christians are hesitant to become academics. So it is bad for Christians that they cannot have complete trust in science.

Christians’ Distrust Harms Science, Too

But it is also bad for academia that so many Christians mistrust science. A significant segment of our society is less supportive of scholarship, undermining the material and social support for academic research and making it more difficult to disseminate knowledge that betters our lives.

I have admitted that part of this mistrust problem is due to some of the anti-intellectual strain within Christianity. I hope some non-Christian scholars will recognize the role they, too, play through their transparently anti-Christian academic, social and political biases. If they would address that honestly it would help develop more respect for intellectual pursuits within the Christian community.

I choose to hope that non-Christian scholars will someday take the steps necessary to demonstrate objectivity and overcome their obvious biases. So far, unfortunately, I have been disappointed. (For more from the author of “The Anti-Christian Bias of Many Scientists Harms Science Itself” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.