How Does the Church Reach Millennials? Hint: It’s Not Flashing Lights or Rock Band Worship

/0 Comments/in , /by

Don’t lie to a Millennial. They will smell it a mile away.

At least that’s what the latest research from Barna and the Cornerstone Knowledge Network shows in a detailed report called “Making Space for Millennials.” The study explored key characteristics of people from 18-30 years old and discussed how churches can make room for their ideas and influence.

Millennials are leaving the church in large numbers: 70 percent of those raised in the church leave by the time they are in their 20s; one-third of those under 30 in the United States claim to have “no religion.” As more and more Millennials leave the church, ministry leaders are asking “why?” and “what can we do about it?”

Here’s what Millennials really want in a church.

Millennials Can Handle the Truth

Millennials want authenticity — a genuine Christianity and a legitimate worship experience. Taylor Snodgrass of the Church & Its 20-somethings has pointed out that if churches are not authentic, Millennials will leave. “Our generation has been advertised at our whole life, and even now on social media. Consequently, when a company isn’t being authentic with their story we can easily see through this. If the church isn’t giving you the whole story, if it’s sugarcoated and they’re trying to put on an act on stage, people in their 20s will see through this. This causes us to leave. We’re good at seeing when people are lying to us.”

Millennials are “not disillusioned with tradition; they are frustrated with slick or shallow expressions of religion,” says David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Group and author of You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church…and Rethinking Faith. Millennials are tired of big box churches marketing entertainment to them rather than following Jesus. They want an authentic Christianity.

“Millennials are not looking for perfect people,” says Frank Powell. “Jesus already handled that. Millennials are looking for people to be real and honest about struggles and temptations.”

Part of being an authentic Christian and living authentically is digging deeper — becoming the mature Christian who eats meat rather than drinks milk as described in Hebrews 5:12-14. And Millennials want that. Snodgrass says that Millennials want to be challenged to think about real-world issues. “We don’t just want to have easy topics each week. We want to dive into difficult-to-understand topics and passages and explore how they apply.”

Kayla Rush and Kyle Smith, authors of “What Millennials Need from the Church,” say that few have bothered to ask Millennials why they’re leaving the church, but being intellectually bored is part of the problem. “In our youth groups we were taught — exhorted, in fact — to want to go deeper, and we’re not getting that from grown-up church,” they said, adding that while churches seem to have a fear of questioning, “questioning is at the heart of education: it leads us into deeper knowledge, not unbelief. We need intellectual engagement.”

Give Me the Real Jesus

Drew Dyck, in his blog article “Millennials Need a Bigger God, Not a Hipper Pastor,” addresses the concerns over why many Millennials are disinterested in church:

Millennials have a dim view of church. They are highly skeptical of religion. Yet they are still thirsty for transcendence. But when we portray God as a cosmic buddy, we lose them (they have enough friends). When we tell them that God will give them a better marriage and family, it’s white noise (they’re delaying marriage and kids or forgoing them altogether). When we tell them they’re special, we’re merely echoing what educators, coaches, and parents have told them their whole lives. But when we present a ravishing vision of a loving and holy God, it just might get their attention and capture their hearts as well (Emphasis added).

Millennials need to experience the life-changing love of God through other people — and be able to give it as well. According to Powell, Millennials are optimistic about the culture because this is the “model of Jesus.” “He loves all types of people, does ministry in the city, and engages the culture,” said Powell. “To reach people today, the church must be immersed in the community for the glory of God.”

Connecting With God in the Worship Space — Keep it Simple

For Millennials, the worship experience begins at the door. Millennials want to know where to go and what is expected of them right away. “Visual clarity is huge,” said Snodgrass. “We walked into a few churches that didn’t have good signage, and we just wandered around. We weren’t sure where to go — and Millennials don’t want to ask. We just want to go in and experience the space without having to ask someone, especially if it’s our first time at church … the biggest thing is to create a welcoming space that isn’t confusing.”

While the research indicated that Millennials tend to want more traditional services, they want a space where they can feel comfortable — like Door of Hope in Portland, Oregon, said Snodgrass. Housed in an old church building without signage and just a stairway up to the sanctuary, the worship area held “rag-tag bunch of chairs set up everywhere and a drum set that had never been used, and people walking around with coffee. There were no pews.”

Research suggests that Millennials prefer more utilitarian spaces with landscape features. Nature helps Millennials connect with God, they said, and they also want a place to rest, rather than a church full of activities. “Our culture is highly fragmented and frenetic, and there are few places to take a breather and gain much-needed perspective,” Kinnaman said. “Ironically, most churches offer what they think people want: more to do, more to see. Yet that’s exactly the opposite of what many young adults crave when it comes to sacred space.”

According to Aspen Group architect Derek DeGroot, church architects are still exploring what a church built for non-activity would look like. Although busy church activities are meant to bring people to God and others, DeGroot said that “church buildings still need to be a place where people can experience Jesus’ invitation: ‘Come unto me, all ye who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.’”

Some churches with younger parishioners have scrapped activities altogether. Pastor Tony Ranvestel at Clear River Church has a congregation largely composed of Millennials. “We call people to follow Jesus; that’s our primary activity,” Ranvestel said. “If you follow Jesus, this leads to serving and justice.” This method seems to be just what Millennials want: a simple, clear, authentic Christian message with no frills. Clear River Church is “unapologetically a place of worship, learning and experiencing community,” and Millennials there have found that it’s a different kind of place than they’ve found anywhere else.

One-on-One Relationships

Millennials crave relationships within the church. They do not want to be just a number. They don’t want to slip in after the music and out before the closing prayer. Millennials want a more individualized approach — and some churches are beginning to do just that. According to pastor and Christianity Today writer Karl Vaters, “By forcing us out of a group approach to church and into a more individualized way of seeing people, Millennials may be poised to bring about the biggest shift in the way churches do ministry since the Reformation.” The relational component of church, said Vaters, is more relevant than any program, method or musical style. The number one way to reach Millennials, he said, is through the church-as-relational-community model: love God and love others.

Ranvestel said Millennials are trying to figure out the purpose of their life. “We present this and try to show them the goodness of God, the goodness of being in community,” he said, “We’re heavy on person-to-person discipleship and believe this happens best in relationships,” adding that he talks to young people about how God’s principles apply to everyday situations.

The way to create a sense of community for Millennials is acknowledging them, greeting them, learning (and using) their names, and engaging them in conversations.

“[W]e’re raising a generation that’s rich in material goods, but poor in relationships,” said Vaters. “That’s the need we should be finding and fulfilling.”

Closing the Generation Gap: Guidance Through Mentorship

Unlike Generation X before them, Millennials want to make connections with and learn from older adults. Boomers (and Gen-Xers) used to say, “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” Vaters says that simply isn’t the case with Millennials. “[T]his generation is hungry for connection with the wisdom and friendship of previous generations.” Barna’s research indicated that young people who have an older mentor from their faith community are 59 percent more likely to stay in church than those who do not.

Founding partner of Cornerstone Knowledge Network Ed Bahler said that “Mentoring and discipling this next generation is everything,” especially if we wish to equip Millennials to lead the church in the coming years.

But it isn’t a one-way street. The church should be open to “reverse mentoring,” said Kinnaman. This means asking Millennials to share knowledge about how to “navigate life in this digital age,” and reciprocal sharing between generations. According to Bahler, “Ultimately,” the future of the church “rests on our ability to connect the generations.”

Millennial Role Play

Just as Millennials don’t want to take the back seat in church, they don’t want to take a back seat in participation, either. Vaters said the churches that are successfully reaching current generations are “doing ministry with active participants.” Millennials want to have a seat at the table and be involved in meaningful discussions. Shawn Williams, pastor at Community Christian Church-Yellow Box said Millennials want a role to play. “They don’t want to sit on the sidelines and observe. If they’re going to be part of a church, it must have value and meaning … If it doesn’t provide meaning and value to them, they won’t participate. They’ll go and find something that does have meaning and value.”

Millennials want to be taken seriously — and given real responsibility. Ed Cyzewski, in his article “‘How Do We Get Millennials to Attend Church?’ Why that is the wrong question,” said if church leaders don’t have Millennials’ input, they cannot know why they are leaving church. “We all have different suspicions about why millennials don’t find church relevant or don’t want to attend church. Some may say it’s because of Bible teaching or cultural compromise … Our suspicions and isolated observations mean very little in the grand scheme of things if young adults don’t have a respected place at the table as full members and leaders in training with voices that are valued and considered.”

Rush and Smith said that church leadership is dominated by their parents’ and grandparents’ generations — so they don’t have a voice in the church. “[Y]outh groups … give teenagers a voice. They speak their minds, they state their preferences, and they are heard. When we graduate and head out into the big bad world of grown-up church, this changes … we no longer have a pastor whose primary job is to listen to our needs and concerns as young people and respond. We have good ideas … but no one seems to care. … So we’re back to square one, having to work our way up through the ranks in hopes of maybe one day having our voices heard and being able to change the status quo … We need to be taken seriously.”

What Now?

It would seem that all of the effort put into large, elaborate, flashy and overdone churches has been all for naught. Millennials are the hippies of the Christian movement: they want simple and honest Christianity in a utilitarian but natural space where they can rest and connect with a very real and authentic God; they crave relationships and connections with older adults, drawing from their wisdom and insight; and they want a participatory experience where they have a seat at the table in shaping the church of the future — their church.

As Powell said, “Millennials want to go far and want their life to have meaning. In their minds this is not possible without deep, authentic, Christ-centered community.” Millennials can be encouraged to come back to church as ministry leaders seek to understand generational differences and what is meaningful to this demographic; not as a group of people, but as individuals; not as a person who warms a pew, but a person who warms a heart through a real relationship. (For more from the author of “How Does the Church Reach Millennials? Hint: It’s Not Flashing Lights or Rock Band Worship” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why I Will Vote for Donald Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Before you applaud me for my integrity or condemn me for selling out, allow me to explain my decision to vote for Donald Trump on November 8.

First, I’m writing this because I have been asked incessantly for months how I would be voting, not because I think I’m someone special or that what I do should influence you.

Second, I’m not endorsing Donald Trump. In my mind, there’s a world of difference between endorsing a candidate and voting for a candidate.

Third, I respect those in the #NeverTrump camp and I share many of their concerns, including the possibility of his further vulgarizing and degrading the nation, the possibility of him deepening our ethnic and racial divides, and the possibility of him alienating our allies and unnecessarily provoking our enemies, just to name a few. Among the #NeverTrump voices I respect are columnists like David French and Ben Shapiro, bloggers like Matt Walsh, and evangelical leaders like Russell Moore and Beth Moore.

Fourth, I take strong exception to evangelicals who have fawned over Trump as if he were some kind of savior figure, supporting him as if he was Saint Donald. I also take issue with evangelical leaders who want us to minimize some of Trump’s failings, constantly saying, “Let him who is without sin cast the first one” (see John 8:7). This is not a question of condemning the man but rather a question of making a moral assessment as to his readiness to serve our nation.

Fifth, my decision to vote for Trump, barring something earth-shattering between now and November 8, is consistent with my position which has been: 1) During the primaries, I issued strong warnings against voting for Trump while we had other excellent choices. I did this in writing, on video and on the radio, but always stating that, if Trump won the nomination, I would reevaluate my position. 2) Once Trump became the Republican candidate, I wrote that I was rooting for him to take steps in the right direction and thereby win my vote. 3) I have stated repeatedly that under no circumstances would I vote for Hillary. (For two strong warnings about Hillary, see here and here.)

So, what has convinced me that I should now vote for Donald Trump?

First, I believe that he actually is serious about appointing pro-life, pro-Constitution Supreme Court justices. When he said during the last debate that, if you’re pro-life, you want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and when he reiterated at his Gettysburg speech that he will be drawing from his list of 20 potential appointees, he helped me feel more confident that he would not suddenly flip-flop if elected.

Second, one reason I endorsed Sen. Cruz was because he took on the political establishment, both Democrat and Republican, to the point of calling it the Washington cartel. Trump is an absolute wrecking ball to the negative parts of the political system (although, unfortunately, he’s been a wrecking ball to some of the good parts of the system), so my vote for him is also a protest vote.

Third, I am voting for the Republican platform, not the Republican party, which means I’m in agreement with the platform while at the same time having very little confidence in the party as a whole.

Fourth, while I have always felt that the line, “We’re electing a president, not a pastor,” was overstated and superficial, if we rephrased it to say, “We’re electing a general to train hand-to-hand combat warriors, not a pastor,” it might have more relevance. In other words, we are not looking for Trump to be a moral reformer (even if he does appoint righteous judges), and, at this point, he certainly is anything but a moral example (although we pray he will be truly converted and become one). Rather, out of our choices for president, which are stark, we are voting for the one most likely to defeat Hillary and make some good decisions for the nation, not be the savior. And with things so messed up in America, the hand-to-hand combat analogy is closer to home.

Fifth, within the first few minutes of the last debate, the massive differences between Hillary and Trump were there for the world to see, she a pro-abortion radical and an extreme supporter of the LGBT agenda, and he unashamedly speaking out against late-term abortions and wanting to appoint justices who would defend our essential liberties. Since I have the opportunity to vote, I feel that I should vote for Trump.

Sixth, Trump continues to be drawn to conservative Christians, and not just ones who tickle his ears. One of my dear friends has spent hours with Trump and members of his family, and he has told me that in 55 years of ministry, no one has received him as openly and graciously as has Trump. Yet my friend continues to speak the truth to him in the clearest possible terms. While I am not one of those claiming that Trump is a born-again Christian (I see absolutely no evidence of this), the fact that he continues to listen to godly men and open the door to their counsel indicates that something positive could possibly be going on. It also indicates that these godly leaders might be a positive influence on him if he was elected president.

Seventh, although I’m quite aware that a president could do great harm or good to the nation, I’m far more concerned with what we as God’s people do with our own lives and witnesses, and for me, the state of the church of America is much more important than the state of the White House. In that context, I echo the words (and warning) of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”

So, in sum: 1) my hope is in God, not Donald Trump, and I do recognize that either Hillary or Trump has the potential to do great harm to America; 2) my urgent call is for us as followers of Jesus to get our own act together so we can be the salt and light of the nation; 3) I will continue to urge all believers not to vote for Hillary Clinton, whose policies will certainly do us great harm; 4) ultimately, the most effective way to defeat Hillary is to vote for Trump, while also praying that God will use him for good, not for evil.

In the end, if he gets elected and fails miserably, I will be grieved but not devastated. If he does well, I will rejoice.

Either way, though, my vote is just that: a vote. My greater role is to live a life pleasing to God with the hope of advancing a gospel-based moral and cultural revolution. (For more from the author of “Why I Will Vote for Donald Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Wikileaks: Disney CEO Bob Iger, ABC News Have Cozy Relationship With Hillary Clinton and Her Campaign

/0 Comments/in , /by

WikiLeaks emails revelations from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta show that not only is there a deep connection with the media — reporters, opinion writers, and news anchors — but it also reaches as high as the corporate executive suite.

Disney CEO Bob Iger appears in the latest round of released WikiLeaks emails, offering insight that those at the very top of the organization accept and encourage the pro-liberal bias at the company’s media division: ABC News.

Iger is a visible and active supporter of progressive politicians, thus sending a powerful message throughout the company about his political beliefs and — potentially — his expectations of news coverage. With the CEO investing significant amounts of his personal money in liberal politicians, it would likely be career-limiting to challenge his political investments. On the contrary, attacking conservatives could be the ticket to career advancement.

A long-time Hillary supporter, Iger appears in an email chain — subject: “Email from Steve Bing” — with Clinton campaign head John Podesta and Steve Bing and Andy Sowers from Shangri-LA business group.

The emails refer to Iger expressing an interest in taking an active role in the campaign stating, “”He wants to be helpful.” In a follow-up email months later, Bing mentioned that Iger had connected with Podesta and that those discussions had gone well, “[Iger’s] had a couple of good talks with you.”

At this point, we don’t know the outcome of Iger’s conversations with Podesta or what it meant to Clinton’s campaign, but we do know the Disney’s leader co-hosted a Beverly Hills fundraiser at billionaire Haim Saban’s home last August that carried a $100,000 cover charge for hosting couples.

According to a Washington Free Beacon story last year, “Disney CEO Bob Iger has given more than $400,000 to Democratic candidates (including Hillary Clinton) and campaign committees since 1999.”

Iger’s aggressive support of Democrats, in general, and Hillary Clinton, in particular, provides cover ABC News to be as biased as its left-wing heart desires.

Given the pro-Clinton bias at Disney and ABC, it’s not surprising that the Clinton campaign would target George Stephanopoulos with ideas to challenge “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer. (The book describes how the Clintons built a personal fortune by leveraging their political influence.) WikiLeaks documents show a series of emails from Clinton staffers celebrating the April 2015 interview on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.” One Clinton team member, Jesse Ferguson, touts Stephanopoulos’ success in refuting Schweizer’s claims and takes credit for the group providing background to the host of “This Week.”

great work everyone. this interview is perfect. he lands nothing and everything is refuted (mostly based on our work)

In addition, Stephanopoulos did not disclose that he donated a total of $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation prior to the interview with Schweizer, even though the Foundation was the focal point of his book. Stephanopoulos merely issued a statement apologizing to ABC News and his viewers for not disclosing his donations to the Foundation. Predictably, ABC News backed Stephanopoulos, saying the failure to disclose his donations “was an honest mistake.”

Given Iger’s support of Clinton and that Stephanopoulos is the former communications director for President Bill Clinton, it was highly unlikely the host of “This Week” would get penalized for aggressively challenging Schweizer or for not disclosing his own donations to Hillary’s campaign.

It seems that Iger’s backing of Clinton virtually eliminates any penalties for its media unit’s employees who get caught playing footsie with team Clinton. And WikiLeaks shows that when it comes to Disney and ABC News, liberal media bias comes from the very top. (For more from the author of “Wikileaks: Disney CEO Bob Iger, ABC News Have Cozy Relationship With Hillary Clinton and Her Campaign” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

4 Damning Truths You Need to Know About the Democrats

/0 Comments/in , /by

It’s tragic that nearly everything we suspected about the broken Democratic Party has turned out to be true. After the WikiLeaks release and the release of the Project Veritas recordings, we can now confirm that:

1. Democrats have embraced violence as a campaign tactic. In fact, they have no problem with people being seriously hurt as long as their political goals are met. Free speech means nothing to the Democrats, and they will use violence to suppress any speech with which they disagree.

2. Democrats have embraced voter fraud by “bussing people in,” and have done so for decades. The integrity of elections are a big joke to Democrats.

3. Democrats will sell access to power for donations to their campaigns or foundations. Power to the people is a big joke to them. Power to those willing to pay them off is what really matters.

4. Democrats don’t believe in process. It’s a common misconception that the far-left wants a big, powerful government. They don’t. The Wikileaks emails show that the Democrats want a big, powerful government that serves their needs. The State Department, the FEC, the DOJ and other government agencies were all targets of the Clinton influence operation. The Clintons, in conjunction with their Democratic Party connections, are more than content to destroy anyone — employed by the government or not — who gets in their way.

Disagree with this? Please, go ahead and read the WikiLeaks emails and watch the Project Veritas recordings yourself. The evidence is damning if your mind is open. (For more from the author of “4 Damning Truths You Need to Know About the Democrats” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Socialist, Refugee Advocate to Run UN for Next 5 Years

/0 Comments/in , /by

While it’s hardly the election to get the most attention this year, the United Nations General Assembly has confirmed a nominee with a background in socialist politics and refugee matters to be the organization’s new secretary-general.

The 193-member United Nations General Assembly approved Antonio Guterres, a socialist whom President Barack Obama called a man of “character, vision, and skills” in a statement five days before speaking with him on the phone.

Guterres replaces U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who served two five-year terms and is stepping down from the position on Dec. 31.

Obama said in his statement that the new secretary-general would be instrumental in dealing with “unprecedented challenges” facing the world, including the surge of millions of displaced people and climate change.

In the midst of the Syrian civil war, the refugee crisis has become front and center for most Western countries, including the United States. Guterres, 67, was prime minister of Portugal from 1995 to 2002, as head of the country’s Socialist Party. He also was the head of the U.N. High Commission for Refugees from 2005 through 2015. Both roles involved some controversy.

When addressing the U.N. General Assembly after his victory, Guterres talked about bringing relief to refugees and promoting gender equality as key priorities, but also said he would take a limited approach to his new office.

“I believe this process means that the true winner today is the credibility of the U.N. And it also made very clear to me that, as secretary-general, having been chosen by all member states, I must be at the service of them all equally and with no agenda but the one enshrined in the U.N. Charter,” Guterres said.

The bigger question might be whether the role matters, said Fred Fleitz, a former U.N. analyst for the CIA and the chief of staff for former U.N. ambassador John Bolton.

“The U.N. is more and more a nonentity,” Fleitz told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “It’s used to justify actions, but because of the vetoes on the Security Council, there is no way to act on Syria or North Korea. I don’t know if this election matters.”

Still, Fleitz said he believes the socialist background of the new secretary-general is relevant.

“It should be concerning to have someone with that perspective for thinking along the lines of one-world government at a time when the world is moving away from that, if you look at the European Union,” Fleitz said.

In addition to leading the Socialist Party in Portugal, Guterres presided over Socialist International, a global group of 153 socialists, social democratic, and labor party leaders, from 1999 to 2005.

Guterres weathered controversy in both of his past positions, said Brett Schaefer, a senior fellow in international and regulatory affairs at The Heritage Foundation.

Guterres resigned as prime minister of Portugal when the Socialist Party took heavy losses in the 2001 local elections following an economic downturn. At the U.N., a 2010 independent Board of Auditors cited the United Nation’s refugee agency for weak financial management and oversight.

Still, Guterres was clearly the best out of a crowded field of candidates for the job, Schaefer said. Schaefer said he thinks the new U.N. chief’s socialist affiliations say something about him.

“It provides some insight into his political leanings and shows that he advocates an economy where the state is more interventionist in markets and over the lives of individuals,” Schaefer told The Daily Signal.

Schaefer anticipates that Guterres will be a strong spokesman on the refugee front, possibly using his platform to call for more Western countries to increase the number of refugees they take in.

“I’m sure he will advocate for the part of the U.N. system he knows the best, given the significant rise in refugees we’ve seen in recent years, he will do what he can to address that problem,” Schaefer said.

Ultimately, Guterres’ ability to push an agenda will be limited, since the U.N. Security Council has the ultimate authority to make major decisions, Schaefer said. That’s why Schaefer contends it would be better to focus on weeding out waste and corruption in the organization.

Guterres, a practicing Catholic, is a trained engineer and was a professor before going into politics in 1974. Guterres will take his post in January, just weeks before the inauguration of a new U.S. president. (For more from the author of “Socialist, Refugee Advocate to Run UN for Next 5 Years” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Obama’s Post-Presidency Could Affect Your State Legislature

/0 Comments/in , /by

During his final State of the Union address, President Barack Obama insisted that one means of ending the nation’s polarized political environment is changing how the states draw congressional and state legislative districts.

“If we want a better politics, it’s not enough just to change a congressman or change a senator or even change a president. We have to change the system to reflect our better selves,” Obama said. “I think we’ve got to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around. Let a bipartisan group do it.”

Obama apparently plans to devote much of his post-presidency to the cause of moving congressional and state legislative districts in Democrats’ favor.

Politico first reported that former Attorney General Eric Holder, an Obama appointee and friend, will be chairman of a new group called the National Democratic Redistricting Committee that was established in “close consultation” with the White House.

Elisabeth Pearson, executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, will be president of the organization.

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which focuses on raising money and campaigning for Democrats running for state legislatures, expects the new organization will align with its efforts to win back statehouses before the 2020 Census and subsequent redistricting, spokeswoman Carolyn Fiddler said.

“DLCC is thrilled that former Attorney General Holder and President Obama are engaging in this crucial effort,” Fiddler told The Daily Signal. “Redistricting and state legislative elections are vital to the future of the Democratic Party, and the president’s involvement will help drive that fact home to a broad audience.”

The new National Democratic Redistricting Committee is a “527,” a name derived from a section in the federal tax code, which means it is an organization dedicated to influencing policy or elections and may raise unlimited amounts of money from corporations and labor unions.

In a widely published statement last week, Holder seemed less concerned about better politics and more about partisanship when he said:

American voters deserve fair maps [of election districts] that represent our diverse communities—and we need a coordinated strategy to make that happen. This unprecedented new effort will ensure Democrats have a seat at the table to create fairer maps after 2020.

The White House didn’t respond to inquiries from The Daily Signal on the effort, nor did the Democratic Governors Association. Holder also did not respond to an inquiry left on his voicemail at Covington & Burling law firm, where he is a partner.

While the president seemed to rail against the practice of gerrymandering by calling for a bipartisan commission to redraw legislative districts, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee reportedly is focusing on state legislative and gubernatorial races, election-related litigation, and voter initiatives at the state level. The goal: Rebuild a bench of future Democratic candidates for state and national offices.

White House officials informally approved naming Holder, a close friend of Obama’s, to run the new organization, The Washington Post reported.

“Over the past eight years the president has seen firsthand Republicans pulled to the far right for fear of a primary challenge instead of trying to govern from the center,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz told the newspaper.

During Obama’s two terms as president, Democrats lost 69 seats in the House of Representatives. The president’s party also lost 913 state legislative seats. A total of 32 state legislative chambers flipped to Republicans during Obama’s two terms, according to the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

While some of these losses could be blamed on the way Republican-controlled state legislatures drew up maps for legislative districts, it can’t explain why Democrats lost 13 U.S. Senate seats and 11 governorships during statewide elections over Obama’s nearly eight years in office.

Obama’s backing of the organization after his presidency is drawing attention because, as The Washington Post reported, it “marks a rare, if not unprecedented, step in the modern era.”

Obama’s affiliation with the group is likely a means to rake in large donations, said J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer and an expert on elections who was a critic of Holder’s actions as attorney general.

“This is about raising the dollars to swamp Republican efforts,” Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “An ex-president will have access to almost limitless amounts of money to fuel efforts to manipulate the political system to advantage the left.”

Every 10 years after the Census, states complete redistricting for congressional and state legislative districts. States generally are free to conduct redistricting how they choose as long as it adheres to the “one man, one vote” principle laid out by the Supreme Court in 1962.

Democrats and Republicans have complained for years about state legislatures seeking to draw the lines of district maps so that the results are favorable to the dominant party’s interest.

The complaining party typically depends on who has the advantage in a particular state. The practice of drawing up such districts commonly is known as gerrymandering.

In response to complaints, 13 states established special commissions to draw state legislative boundaries, taking redistricting out of the hands of the legislature—similar to what Obama, in his State of the Union address, said a bipartisan group should do.

The 13 states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

Seven of them—Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Jersey, and Washington—have special commissions to determine congressional districts as well as state legislative districts.

However, such commissions haven’t always made the process less political, said Wendy Underhill, program director for the National Conference of State Legislatures. That’s because even nominally bipartisan commissions frequently have a party advantage.

“It’s not necessarily a given it will have a less political outcome just because you have a commission,” Underhill told The Daily Signal. “It depends on the rules and the makeup of the commission.”

In some of the 13 states, Arizona and California among them, the commissions are made up of nongovernment members and include an equal number of Republicans, Democrats, and independents.

In Ohio, where a commission will go into effect after 2020, the body will be made up of the governor, auditor, secretary of state, and four others appointed by majority and minority members of the general assembly.

In Arkansas, a board is made up of the state’s governor, attorney general, and secretary of state. Currently, all these officials are Republicans, so redistricting decisions likely would have a partisan tilt.

Even if each of the three elected Arkansas officials were not of the same party, a majority party likely would have a 2-1 advantage in determining the makeup of legislative districts. So, redistricting in Arkansas would not be void of politics. (For more from the author of “How Obama’s Post-Presidency Could Affect Your State Legislature” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What the Founders Thought About the Value of a ‘Classical’ Education

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The generation that produced the U.S. Constitution lived at a time when liberal education was being rethought, redefined, stretched, and challenged.

The Founders lined up on different sides of that debate. They argued over whether or not a liberal education worthy of the name had to be a classical education based on instruction in the Greek and Latin languages. They divided into factions we might call, for convenience, “classicists” and “anti-classicists.”

Among the things most surprising is how early in the Colonial period objections were raised to the teaching of Greek and Latin; how widespread the resistance was; how many very famous Americans weighed in on the debate; and how modern the arguments brought by the anti-classicists sound.

The past is different and distant from us, and yet, in this case, the similarities are striking, leading one to wonder if there is a timeless element to America’s quarrel over the means and ends of good education. We sound like them to a surprising degree, and they sound like us. But not exactly, and the differences do matter.

The anti-classicists appeared in print as early as 1735—40 years before the Revolution. In that year, an anonymous Philadelphian called for a system of private education that would recognize the needs of different students and their families.

Debate Over Dead Languages

Not everyone was destined to be a scholar. Not everyone aspired to the professions of law, theology, or medicine. A thriving society needed farmers and tradesmen, clerks and accountants. Why should these children spend precious years trying to master languages they would soon forget? Why teach them Latin when what they needed in life were skills in English grammar and composition?

This anonymous author cited the English empiricist John Locke, who ridiculed the folly of wasting time teaching Latin to students who would never use it.

Over the ensuing 70 or 80 years, these arguments found renewed expression among some of America’s most articulate statesmen and reformers. Future scholars, they allowed, could continue to devote their childhood to mastery of Greek and Latin, but a young, ambitious, expansive republic on the rise needed to train its citizens in plain and vigorous English and in modern foreign languages for the sake of commerce in goods and ideas.

The nation needed to equip them for a vocation; to provide them with a utilitarian education for the sake of tangible “advantages” in life; to lay the groundwork for progress in science and the discovery of new knowledge; to offer a “universal” education (one open to common people, not just the elite); and to promote a distinctly American, even nationalist, education free from the dead hand of Europe’s antiquated ways of teaching and learning.

(These calls for reform sound like we’ve stepped into a modern debate over STEM education in our schools today.)

To understand the Founders and liberal education, we need to know first that among the Founders, there were champions of the classics who had every intention that Greek and Latin remain central to liberal education in the American republic; second, that there were dissenters who objected strenuously to the classics’ powerful grip on American education; and third, that even the champions of the classics tossed onto the rubbish heap some of the most venerable of the ancients.

All three parts of this argument matter if we want to arrive at a balanced judgment of the Founders and liberal education.

The takeaway from this is that the Founders’ legacy for classical and liberal education is a mixed one: It depends on which ones we quote.

Founders Against Founders

Classical and liberal education have proven to be resilient. So has the opposition. Classicist and anti-classicists alike would be partly pleased, partly disappointed, and partly alarmed if they could visit 21st-century America and the jumble of public schools, private schools, home schools, online schools, classical schools, and vocational schools that make up our educational “system.”

Among the “classicists” we find the ornery New England statesman John Adams, our second president. As an adult, Adams maintained his skill in Latin and Greek along with proficiency in a number of modern languages. Adams read widely in ancient and modern history, philosophy, constitutionalism, and political theory. His indebtedness to liberal learning could not have been greater.

Adams argued that the stability and durability of the young United States rested on the twin pillars of knowledge and virtue, a common refrain among the Founders.

Though a voracious reader of the classics himself, Thomas Jefferson, Adams’ bitter rival during the early years of the republic, was somewhat ambivalent and spoke rather disparagingly of the classicists: “They pretended to praise and encourage education, but it was to be the education of our ancestors. We were to look backward, not forward, for improvement.”

One of the earliest critics of the prevalence of the classical languages was Benjamin Franklin.

His opposition to a certain kind of instruction in Greek and Latin came not from any anti-elitism, but from a conviction that time spent in this way had become an impediment to education, even an impediment to liberal education, depending on how we define liberal learning.

If “liberal” meant a broad, generous education for a man of the world able to navigate through polite society, then Latin and Greek seemed cramped and pedantic.

Franklin himself was a multilingual, learned man of cosmopolitan tastes and interests, yet he still opposed the classics. Why?

Flexibility

Franklin aimed at a utilitarian education that would equip ordinary citizens for their professions, including competence in their own language.

Education must be useful. The curriculum must include, he wrote in 1749, penmanship, drawing, English grammar and style, public speaking, history (with an emphasis on politics), geography, chronology, morality, natural history, and what his generation called “good breeding.”

The ultimate aim of this useful education was public service to the community. Franklin wasn’t opposed to the training of classical scholars, but not everyone was destined to be a scholar, and a practical education suited to the needs of a dynamic and prosperous society could not pretend everyone was going to be an academic.

Another Founder named Benjamin—Benjamin Rush—in 1789 argued for “liberal education” (his words) without instruction in Greek and Latin at all. Note the flexibility of the phrase “liberal education.” It could be divorced from classical education. Rush regretted the prominence of the “dead languages” as an obstacle to the promotion of “useful knowledge.”

By being so specialized, he thought, classical education could never meet the demands of “universal knowledge.” That is to say, it obstructed not only the progress of practical knowledge, but also the spread of knowledge through all levels of society that would make participatory government possible. The times demanded a new system of education to meet the needs of a new kind of government and society.

The criticism articulated by Franklin, Rush, and others formed part of a much larger story. We see by the end of the 18th century the opening of a distinct divide in educational theory and practice that runs right down to the present.

The emerging industrial, mass democratic, utilitarian, market-driven age turned out to have very different expectations for the kind of people schools ought to produce.

Importance of the Ancients

It should be noted, however, that opponents of classical education did not wage a war of extermination against the classics themselves: 1) They still wanted scholars to master Greek and Latin; 2) they still wanted the ancients read in good English translations; and 3) they wrestled with the inescapable question of whether an education for everyone could be built on instruction in the Greek and Latin languages.

At the same time, the defenders of the classical languages were not necessarily supporters of the whole of the Greek and Roman tradition. They were selective in their judgments. They even rejected parts of the ancient heritage that today many advocates of classical education in particular consider to be foundational to the whole tradition.

Indeed, for the generation of 1787, for the culture that gave the United States its Constitution, the ancient world and its authors and their ideas mattered very much. The Greeks and Romans provided examples of success and failure, models to follow and models to avoid.

If any of the Founders rejected the study of Greek and Latin, that did not mean they rejected reading the ancients in good modern translations. It did not mean removing grammar, logic, and rhetoric from the curriculum—the trinity of subjects at the very heart of liberal education.

That even the generation of 1787 argued about education reminds us that the problem of education in American society and politics has never been a settled question. Not even close. (For more from the author of “What the Founders Thought About the Value of a ‘Classical’ Education” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Joe Miller: Murkowski Has Been A ‘Big Part Of Problem’ In DC

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Our nation and state are clearly on the wrong path. Alaskans feel it: mounting national debt, steep deficits, social unrest, and an economy that has all but flat-lined.

Unfortunately, Lisa Murkowski has been a big part of the problem, and to borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan, “I cannot and will not stand by and see this great country destroy itself.”

Murkowski stated earlier this month she “cannot and will not support” Republican nominee Donald Trump for president, meaning she presumably would rather see Hillary Clinton occupy the Oval Office.

As Chief Executive, Clinton will fill the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal bench with liberal justices, while taking America further down President Obama’s road to ruin.

During the last session of Congress, Murkowski voted with President Obama 72 percent of the time, making her the most liberal “Republican” senator up for re-election.

Because of her votes in Congress, the senator received an “F” rating from Conservative Review coming in below liberal New York Democrat Charlie Rangel.

Murkowski also garnered failing grades from Heritage Action and FreedomWorks. Family Research Council also gave her an “F” and National Right To Life, did so as well during the last session of Congress.

Meanwhile, NARAL Pro-Choice America recognized Murkowski as being an abortion supporter, giving her an 80 percent rating for her votes in 2014. Just this past December, Murkowski offered legislation, along with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, seeking to block Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.

This is not the record of the “Conservative Voice for Alaska” Lisa Murkowski claims to be in campaign ads.

Despite being from the Last Frontier, “Murkowski acts like a Republican from New Jersey,” conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin charged on his program a few weeks ago when he endorsed my candidacy.

Murkowski’s liberal, big government credentials are long-standing. While serving as a state legislator, she co-sponsored legislation to take part of your PFD and use it to fund state government and also voted to institute a state income tax.

Earlier this year, she suggested that your PFD should be on the table as a possible solution to the government’s spending addiction.

Her record in Washington on issues that specifically impact Alaska is no better. The senator voted to confirm anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder and anti-development, radical environmentalist Sally Jewell to be Secretary of the Interior.

Under Jewell’s leadership, Alaskans saw control of another 100 million acres of their land ceded to the federal government over just the last few months.

Nearly two-thirds of Alaska’s territory is already controlled by the feds, ranking second only to Nevada. Washington, D.C. should not be taking more of our land, it should be relinquishing it, as the Statehood Act (1958) requires.

Murkowski facilitated this most recent land grab in her position as chair of the Senate appropriations subcommittee on the Interior and Environment, when she voted to fund the very program that is responsible for the theft.

If you grant me the honor to serve as your next United States Senator, I’ll fight to protect your interests, not special interests.

The Constitution will be the North Star that guides my decisions.

You have my word that I will stand up to the Establishment, in both parties, and be relentless in the fight to restore our nation to its constitutional foundations, where government is once again the servant, and not the master.

I will fight to rescind all of President Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders, including executive amnesty. Americans shouldn’t lose their jobs or see their pay held down due to cheap, illegal labor.

Further, the administration’s Islamic refugee resettlement must end, unless a means to adequately vet individuals seeking entry can be but in place.

Our foremost liberty is the right to life. I am the only U.S. Senate candidate that has been endorsed by Alaska Right to Life and Alaska Family Action.

The Second Amendment is essential to our liberty, and I will oppose all efforts to thwart this fundamental right. I am the only candidate in the race backed by Gun Owners of America.

As a veteran (endorsed by Combat Veterans for Congress) who has used Veterans Administration medical services, I will be tireless in ensuring our nation keeps its promises to those who have served our nation in uniform.

It is time for Alaskans to take control of our destiny. With courage and hard work, the fortunes of America and Alaska can turn again. I believe a return to constitutional government can restore the nation we know and love.

I would be honored to have your vote on November 8th.

Congress Demanding More FBI Docs on State Department’s Alleged ‘Quid pro Quo’

/0 Comments/in , /by

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is demanding that the FBI hand over more documents from their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. But this time, the request is more narrow — the committee is asking for all investigation documents related to Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy’s alleged “quid pro quo” proposal, in which the top Clinton aide offered more FBI agents overseas in exchange for the classification change of a certain email before it went public.

The topic of the email in question? Benghazi.

According to a Fox News report, the FBI has until Thursday of next week to hand over the documents.

“The FBI thought this information was not relevant,” Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee told Fox News, “and that is just stunning to me, because this is some of the most unbelievable set of documents that we’ve seen to date, and it really goes to the core of why we’re so concerned and why we have to continue to do vigorous oversight.”

What is the Quid Pro Quo Scandal?

The quid pro quo scandal surfaced Monday after the FBI released 100 more documents from their Clinton investigation — the final set in a four-part release.

The Stream covered the controversial finding, which suggested that Kennedy unsuccessfully pressured multiple people at the FBI to change the classification of one email before it was released. The classification change Kennedy sought would have allowed the State Department to archive the email instead of releasing it to the public in accordance with Congress’s Freedom of Information Act request. According to one interview summary of a senior FBI official, Kennedy offered a “quid pro quo:” more FBI agents “in countries where they are presently forbidden” in exchange for the classification change. The FBI’s request for those agents had previously been ignored by Kennedy.

Members of Congress expressed outrage over the finding, including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chaffetz and Devin Nunes (R-CA), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. In a joint statement, Chaffetz and Nunes said Kennedy’s alleged conduct is “extremely disturbing” and called for Kennedy’s removal:

Someone who would try to get classified markings doctored should not continue serving in the State Department or retain access to classified information. Therefore, President Obama and Secretary Kerry should immediately remove Under Secretary Kennedy pending full investigation.

What Was the Email?

The email that Kennedy allegedly attempted to have “doctored” is one of two emails that sparked the initial FBI investigation into Clinton’s email habits as secretary of state, reported Catherine Herridge, Fox’s Chief Intelligence correspondent. The subject line of the email is, “FW: FYI — Report of arrests — possible Benghazi connection.” The email was sent on November 18, 2012, two months after an attack on U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, were killed in the attack.

The heavily redacted email says that individuals possibly connected to the attack had been arrested in Libya. The majority of the email’s contents, such as confidential sources, were classified, Herridge reported. The email was sent on Clinton’s private email server.

Clinton, secretary of state at the time of the attack, has been accused of failing to provide adequate security for the Americans who were stationed in Benghazi. Clinton also long insisted there was no classified information on her private email server. This email contradicted that assertion.

Did Kennedy Really Offer a Quid Pro Quo?

After the release of the FBI documents Monday, the State Department released a statement that “there was never a quid pro quo,” a position they have since maintained.

“They’re notes from interviews,” John Kirby, State Department spokesman, said of the interview summaries, indicating that they may not be accurate. “They’re not facts, they’re not conclusions, they’re not investigative work.”

But for Chaffetz and his committee who are waiting to see more FBI documents, that’s not a good enough answer. (For more from the author of “Congress Demanding More FBI Docs on State Department’s Alleged ‘Quid pro Quo'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Undercover Activist: New Video Targeting Clinton, DNC Coming … Dead or Alive

/0 Comments/in , /by

Activist James O’Keefe has a warning for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Democratic National Committee Chairman Donna Brazile.

The man whose undercover videos detailing dirty tricks — activities those on the videos insist were bought and paid for the Clinton campaign and the DNC — is going to be back next week, with a vengeance.

O’Keefe implied Friday that his high-profile videos were endangering his life, but said the truth would emerge regardless.

Brazile came in for special mention.

Trump himself mentioned the video Saturday to buttress his claim that the election has been “rigged.”

This past week, O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action released undercover videos taken by a Project Veritas Action staff member who infiltrated a group called Americans United for Change. The videos were released on its Project Veritas Action channel on YouTube.

In one of the videos, staff members of the group who have since resigned their jobs claimed they planned and executed a scheme to cause disruptions at rallies held by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Staff members claimed they were the lead organizers of a violent protest that forced the cancellation of a Donald Trump rally in Chicago. One leader, Scott Foval, claimed a woman who alleged she was punched by a Trump supporter last month was one of the group’s activities. Although that woman has denied the claim, she has also withdrawn her assault accusation since the videos came out.

A second video released by Project Veritas Action showed a group of staff members talking about how to get around laws regarding voter fraud without the authorities being any wiser. (For more from the author of “Undercover Activist: New Video Targeting Clinton, DNC Coming … Dead or Alive” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.