Liberals Should Apologize for Obamacare

/0 Comments/in , /by

Obamacare must have been designed to fail. Even ideologically blind liberals wouldn’t design a program this bad without a secondary agenda. (Not coincidentally they are now floating the “public option” trial balloon.) And if it weren’t designed to fail, then when can conservatives expect an apology from liberals for the legislative disaster known as Obamacare?

I have more than a year of archived episodes of my podcast “Renegade Republican,” and a good number of them were spent warning listeners about the ongoing threats posed by Obamacare. I wish those predictions were fairy tales, but tragically, they are non-fiction. Sadly, I wasn’t the only one sounding the alarm about the coming Obamacare disaster. I say “sadly” because the warnings were pervasive.

If you turned on the radio, you heard conservative talk radio hosts warning about the metastasizing, legislative cancer known as Obamacare.

If you turned on the television, you saw a cavalcade of conservative talking heads warning about the coming Obamacare nuclear winter.

If you happened upon the podcasting arena, you heard numerous conservative podcasters warning about the hidden dangers embedded in the cryptic Obamacare legislation.

Even if you missed all of this but happened to search the Internet for articles about Obama’s signature legislation, you likely stumbled upon one of the thousands of pieces sounding the alarm about the approaching Obamacare asteroid.

But the mainstream media ignored us. They laughed us off as alarmist partisans hell-bent on influencing elections through hyperbolic alarmism, while the rest of the biased media insider class simply ignored us in the hopes we would all go away.

So when can we expect our apology from the liberals for their treatment of conservative Obamacare truth-tellers? I won’t hold my breath. But, as a reminder, we warned you about the following pitfalls which are now reality:

1. Skyrocketing premiums because of the expensive coverage mandated by Obamacare
Obamacare forces Americans to pay for health care insurance for services they either don’t want or don’t need. Where did the liberals think the money to pay for these additional services was going to come from? The tooth fairy? It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in economics to figure out that when you order Americans to buy insurance for health care services they don’t want, their premium costs are going to increase.

2. Increased usage of the emergency room as a primary health care provider because of Medicaid expansion
Again, it didn’t require a deep understanding of health care economics to predict that when you expand a government-run health care program to an entirely new block of recipients — at great cost to the taxpayer but little cost to the recipient — that they were going to use this “free” benefit at emergency rooms and other medical facilities.

3. Health insurance plan cancellations because of non-compliance with Obamacare red tape
Despite President Obama’s disingenuous pledge, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” Obamacare forced health insurance companies to cancel policies by the millions because they didn’t comply with a series of new Obamacare restrictions and mandates.

4. Perverse economic incentives encouraged younger Americans to abandon the Obamacare exchanges
Not surprisingly, younger, generally healthier Americans — also the cohort least likely to be in a strong economic bargaining position because of their limited earning power and life experience —avoided buying the expensive health insurance product, which would have been a long-term drag on their finances and not a net benefit.

Knowing the far-left as I do, I’m betting that it will defend this legislative disaster until its last legislative breath. Liberals never apologize; they just run roughshod over the country and its constitutional restrictions and then blame the carnage on Republicans. This pattern continues because a compliant class of media sheep — led around by its herders in the liberal activist community and the liberal political class — never call out BS, even when BS was called a long time ago by conservatives sounding the Obamacare alarm. (For more from the author of “Liberals Should Apologize for Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

No, Michael Moore, Hillary Will Never Be ‘America’s Pope Francis’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Activist filmmaker Michael Moore’s latest documentary, “Michael Moore in TrumpLand,” has been the trending talk of both Hollywood and Washington, DC, since its release last week. In the film, Moore discusses Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s rise to political prominence, then lays out a case for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

And because I know most won’t subject themselves to an hour-long Hillary PR fest — after all, you could just watch the mainstream media if you were looking for that that — I watched it to see what all of the hype was about. Much of it is what you’d expect from a Moore film: hyperbolic, foul-mouthed hippie socialism. But there was one part that absolutely confounded me: when Moore compares Clinton to Pope Francis.

The filmmaker suggests that Francis “kept quiet” on controversial matters like the LGBT movement (he didn’t) and his criticism of capitalism while he was a cardinal during the junta era in Argentina. But on the day he was appointed, Francis became the “people’s pope” — a universal symbol of unity (read: progressivism) in the church.

“He must have kept quiet all those years,” Moore says. “But he’s thinking, he’s planning. He gets all these other cardinals to think he’s some conservative a**hole from some South American dictatorship.”

Pope Francis rose to eminence, according to Moore, because “he bided his time.” Clinton, he argues, has done the same, allowing her husband and even President Barack Obama to take credit for her political ideas. But this presidency could be “her Pope Frank moment.”

“What if Hillary becomes our Pope Francis?” Moore asks his audience. “What if all this time … this has been part of her long game?”

The multi-millionaire filmmaker claims that Clinton was never taken seriously as a young politician. She was ridiculed for her appearance and discriminated against because she was a woman. Until now, the American people have simply failed to notice all of the good things she’s done to improve the lives of citizens.

Moore goes on to paint a picture of a President Hillary Clinton who champions radically progressive issues by signing executive order after executive order — from allowing all illegal immigrants to remain in the country, to releasing all nonviolent drug offenders from prison, to banning high fructose corn syrup. But none of this will happen, he warns, unless the American people “get behind her” and don’t “abandon her” like they have in the past.

Moore’s portrayal of Clinton as a holy figure stands in clear contrast with his depiction of Donald Trump as a fiendish tyrant, more diabolical and dangerous than any individual the country has ever witnessed. He calls Trump a “human Molotov cocktail” that appeals particularly to lower-class white men because he challenges “the system that stole their lives from them.”

According to “TrumpLand,” male Trump supporters are like dying dinosaurs, roaring at the top of their lungs because they believe having a woman in the White House will secure their demise. But there’s good news, he claims: Hillary — and all women, for that matter — are harmless. Moore claims that men are responsible for all that is wrong with the world. They built the first smokestacks, after all. They’re more likely to commit murder, rape, or carry out mass shootings.

“Whatever you’re afraid of does not wear a dress … Or a pantsuit,” he says.

I have news for Michael Moore: Hillary Clinton will never be “America’s Pope Francis.” It’s not because she’s a woman, or because she wears pantsuits, or even because she’s unlikeable. It is because Hillary Clinton has a thoroughly documented history of cronyism and class warfare, of attacking religious freedom and dismembering the family, of money-grubbing and power-grabbing.

Moore’s therapeutic, spiritual, secularist approach may convince some Americans to vote for his saintly rendering of the Democratic presidential nominee. But anyone who dares to hold Moore’s claims against the real Hillary Clinton will see how utterly absurd this comparison truly is.

Clinton is not some wild-card candidate with an obscure past who’s full of surprises. She’s revealed her character time and time again — and it’s been consistently terrible. If there’s one thing Pope Francis and Hillary have in common, it’s the fact that they both have public track records. Those who really want to research the truth about these public figures can readily do so. Those who don’t are free to blindly wander around Michael Moore’s “Lala land.” (For more from the author of “No, Michael Moore, Hillary Will Never Be ‘America’s Pope Francis'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Elizabeth Warren Has It Wrong on Voter Fraud

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., penned an op-ed for The Washington Post equating loose rhetoric by a political opponent with legitimate concerns expressed by many about inadequate safeguards in our electoral system.

The op-ed is a classic sleight of hand, reducing a discussion about a topic as serious as election integrity to an ad hominem attack.

For the senator, such antics are necessary because the facts simply do not bear out the progressive position. The simple fact is that election fraud often goes undetected.

Overburdened prosecutors frequently assign vote fraud cases a low priority, particularly after an election is over. Moreover, many states lack the procedural tools necessary to detect fraud before or after it occurs.

Nonetheless, contrary to Warren’s fervent assertion that “there is literally no evidence—none, zip, zero—that widespread voter fraud is a factor in modern American elections,” Heritage Foundation research has documented literally hundreds of convictions in voter fraud cases.

And while many progressives, including the senator, quote a study purporting to indicate that voter fraud is vanishingly rare, that analysis is constricted to a single type of fraud, in-person impersonation fraud.

Many Forms of Fraud

Left out of that report are the countless other forms electoral fraud can take, from the casting of fraudulent absentee ballots, to illegal efforts by partisans to “assist” voters in filling out their ballots, to voters who habitually vote in multiple states.

The Heritage Foundation’s voter fraud database also documents massive conspiracies to buy votes, felons and noncitizens convicted of voting despite their ineligibility, and multiple elections overturned because of the sheer number of fraudulent ballots cast.

>>> Here Are 3 New Cases of Voter Fraud. Governments Must Ensure Vote Integrity as Election Day Looms.

Indeed, the senator need look no further than her own state for proof that voter fraud exists. In 2012, former state Rep. Stephen “Stat” Smith pleaded guilty to two counts of voter fraud.

Smith ran a scheme in which he obtained absentee ballots for people he knew to be ineligible to vote, even going so far as mailing in ballots on behalf of voters without their knowledge. Smith received a four-month prison sentence.

Warren denounces voter ID laws and other electoral integrity measures as being designed to “disproportionately suppress turnout by Democratic voters” or otherwise “delegitimize Democratic voters.” Yet, it is often those very voters who are the victims of election fraud.

Again looking to Massachusetts, in 2013, Enrico “Jack” Villamaino, former Republican selectman and candidate for the state House of Representatives, illegally modified the party affiliations of 280 voters, changing them from registered Democrats to “unenrolled” voters.

He schemed to request absentee ballots in their names to guarantee himself additional votes in the 2012 Republican primary while denying them the right to participate in the Democratic primary. Villamaino pleaded guilty to multiple felony charges and served four months in prison.

A few months ago, the results of a Democratic primary for Missouri’s 78th House District were thrown out because of widespread absentee ballot fraud. The incumbent, Penny Hubbard, lost the in-person vote in the first election, but won based on the lopsided support she seemingly enjoyed among absentee voters.

However, upon closer examination, it turned out that many of the absentee ballots were improperly recorded. A judge ordered a redo, and Hubbard’s Democratic challenger defeated her by a whopping 1,533 votes.

Election Integrity

At the end of the day, this is what the issue of electoral integrity is all about—ensuring that every legitimate vote cast is counted, and that elections accurately reflect the will of those voters. After all, every illegitimate ballot negates a legitimately cast vote.

To that end, states must put in place reasonable safeguards to ensure that only legitimate voters are able to cast ballots, while not unreasonably burdening eligible citizens seeking to exercise their rights.

In 2008, in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Indiana’s voter identification law, concluding that requiring photo identification to vote is not an unreasonably burdensome requirement.

The majority opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens. Although long recognized as one of the more liberal members of the Court, Stevens spent many years practicing law in Chicago, a city with a rich tradition of voter fraud.

But one does not need to read Supreme Court opinions to see that voter ID laws are hardly as burdensome as many activists claim. Common sense will do.

Our society requires the presentation of photo identification to buy alcohol, board a plane, get a prescription, drive a car, enter a bar during evening hours, and obtain a meeting with some of the very same politicians who today denounce photo ID laws as unduly burdensome or racially discriminatory.

Commonsense Solutions

Common sense will not stop activists, however. Adverse opinions in cases out of Texas, North Carolina, and Wisconsin overturned photo ID laws and other election measures, denouncing them as racially motivated.

Yet, as Heritage senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky points out, in the Texas and North Carolina cases, the challengers could not identify a single disenfranchised minority voter.

In the Texas case, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Edith Jones penned a powerful dissent, noting that the “multi-thousand-page record yields not a trace, much less a legitimate inference, of racial bias by the Texas Legislature.” The majority opinion, according to Jones, “misconstrues the law, misapplies the facts, and raises serious constitutional questions.”

Progressives smell blood in the water, and will continue their legal barrage anywhere that reasonable efforts to secure the vote have been enacted. The future integrity of our elections—the very core of our democracy—may hinge on who fills the Supreme Court vacancy left by the late Antonin Scalia.

It’s long past time to acknowledge that voter fraud is a real, nonpartisan issue, and take sensible measures to secure the ballot box. (For more from the author of “Elizabeth Warren Has It Wrong on Voter Fraud” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

US Security Benefits When Japan, south Korea Share Intelligence

/0 Comments/in , /by

South Korea recently announced it would restart negotiations with Japan for a military and intelligence sharing agreement. Washington should encourage this growing security cooperation.

Moon Sang-gyun, spokesman for South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense, said Sept. 27 that North Korea’s “nuclear and missile threats are escalating by the day, so our security situation is becoming more critical.”

My own recent private discussions with government officials in Seoul confirmed South Korea’s intent to move forward on the agreement, formally called a General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA).

The GSOMIA would be the first military pact between Seoul and Tokyo since 1945. Though historic, the agreement is simply a legal framework of required methods to protect classified information that allows for the bilateral exchange of intelligence about North Korea’s nuclear, missile, submarine, and conventional force threats as well as potential military and cyberattacks.

History Impeded Progress

While Washington has strong alliances with both South Korea and Japan, the security relations between Seoul and Tokyo have been extremely limited due to territorial disputes and bitter historical animosities dating to Japan’s brutal, 35-year occupation of the Korean Peninsula between 1910 and 1945.

In June 2012, South Korea and Japan were within an hour of signing a General Security of Military Information Agreement, but Seoul canceled at the last moment. The reasons: fierce domestic criticism and legislative backlash over the secretive nature of the talks and the prospect of signing a pact with Korea’s former colonial oppressor.

The head of the opposition party at the time accused the South Korean government of seeking “to give access without restriction to military facilities and intelligence in seeking to forge a military intelligence treaty with a country that invaded our nation in the past.”

In reality, under the planned agreement Seoul and Tokyo would retain authority for deciding what data are shared.

Despite the collapse of the agreement, Seoul and Tokyo continued to quietly improve bilateral security relations. They exchanged observers during military exercises and engaged in trilateral naval and missile defense training exercises with the United States.

The U.S., South Korea, and Japan signed a limited intelligence sharing agreement in December 2014, but it still required Washington to be the intermediary for information provided by Seoul and Tokyo. While that agreement was an improvement, it still didn’t enable effective, real-time security cooperation during a crisis or attack.

Recent progress was enabled by the December 2015 bilateral agreement on South Korean women forced into sexual slavery—they were known euphemistically as “comfort women”—during the 1910-1945 Japanese occupation.

The landmark agreement was a stunning success achieved through diplomatic perseverance, as well as political courage by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-hye to push back against nationalist elements in their respective countries.

This past March, the U.S., Japanese, and South Korean leaders pledged to increase military cooperation against the growing North Korean threats.

On Oct. 14, South Korean Defense Minister Han Min-koo explained that “the need has heightened” for the bilateral agreement because of North Korea’s two nuclear tests and breakthrough successes on several missile systems in 2016.

Seoul is also probably more receptive given China’s heavy-handed threats of economic, diplomatic, and military pressure against the U.S. in deploying the missile defense system known as Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, in South Korea.

Critical for Allied Security

A bilateral General Security of Military Information Agreement between America’s critical northeast Asian allies would improve deterrence and defense capabilities against Pyongyang’s escalating nuclear and missile threats. Currently, for example, U.S. military officers must turn off live feeds from South Korean or Japanese sensors when representatives of the other ally enter a command or intelligence center.

Removing the intelligence-sharing constraints would be in South Korea’s national interests, since it would enable access to North Korean threat data from Japan’s high-tech intelligence satellites, AEGIS ships, and early warning and anti-submarine aircraft. South Korea could provide information on the North’s missiles detected by long-range air search radar.

Both South Korea and Japan have extensive, highly capable militaries. Given Pyongyang’s large submarine fleet and successful launch of a submarine-launched ballistic missile this year, coordinated trilateral anti-submarine and counter-mining operations are increasingly important.

The GSOMIA also is necessary for a comprehensive allied missile defense system in Asia. Integrating South Korea, Japanese, and U.S. warning sensors and tracking radars would enhance real-time missile defense security for all three countries. However, to date, South Korea has refused to integrate its Korea Air and Missile Defense system into the more comprehensive and effective allied ballistic missile defense system.

Despite the clear and present danger from North Korean missiles, South Korea insists on maintaining an independent and less capable missile defense system to protect its citizens and U.S. forces in Korea against the North’s nuclear, biological, and chemical missile attacks.

In addition to signing the agreement, South Korea should integrate its missile defense system into the comprehensive allied system with linked sensors to improve deterrence and defense capabilities for the forces of all three countries.

What Washington Should Do

U.S. interests in Asia—ensuring regional stability, protecting maritime freedom of navigation, and peaceful resolution of disputes—benefit from greater multilateral cooperation.

Washington therefore should continue policies to augment bilateral and trilateral military cooperation efforts with Seoul and Tokyo, particularly in missile defense against the North Korean threat.

Strong trilateral security cooperation also can affirm recently improving South Korea-Japanese relations and form the basis for addressing other regional and global security challenges.

The U.S. will remain the guarantor of regional stability and should:

• Publicly highlight the need for greater South Korean-Japanese military and diplomatic cooperation as a vial component of comprehensive security efforts against North Korea’s growing military threat. While the immediate need is on missile defense and anti-submarine operations, Japan and South Korea should discuss potential joint peacekeeping missions, counterterrorism, counterpiracy, and disaster response operations.

• Step up trilateral military exercises to increase transparency, augment familiarity of operations necessary during a crisis, and improve combined capabilities.

• Continue to affirm unequivocal military support for South Korea and Japan, including the U.S. extended deterrence guarantee of the nuclear umbrella, missile defense, and conventional forces.

• Maintain robust, forward-deployed military forces in South Korea, Japan, and the Western Pacific to deter, defend, and defeat security threats to U.S. national interests and American allies. The U.S. presence also should allay South Korean concerns over Japan’s defense reforms and slowly growing security role.

• Privately counsel both South Korea and Japan to make progress on implementing the December 2015 “comfort women” agreement and refrain from comments and actions that could incite nationalist responses in either country.

• Propose an annual trilateral meeting of the three countries’ foreign and defense ministers (a “2+2+2 meeting”) to develop a joint strategic vision and integrate roles, missions, and capabilities.

A Necessity

U.S. national interests and ability to defend them are enhanced by greater cooperation among our allies. This is particularly true between South Korea and Japan, which recently have overcome strained bilateral relations.

The growing military capabilities of North Korea and China, and their willingness to use them to test international resolve, have increased tensions and the risk of military incidents or clashes.

While the actions by Pyongyang and Beijing are inimical to allied interests, they have crystalized the necessity that South Korea and Japan overcome historic differences to address current and future threats.

Washington should welcome and encourage growing South Korean-Japanese security cooperation. (For more from the author of “US Security Benefits When Japan, South Korea Share Intelligence” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Transgender School Bathrooms Case

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether a federal order requiring public schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity is lawful.

The Obama administration issued a directive earlier this year requiring public schools to accommodate transgender students.

The case before the Supreme Court originates in Gloucester County, Virginia. The high court agreed Friday to hear it, granting review on two legal questions.

The Obama administration’s directive advised that the U.S. Department of Education read Title IX, the section of the federal code concerning gender discrimination in education, to include transgender individuals—meaning a school may not discriminate against them in any way.

Some school districts across the country have ignored the order and set their own policies, arguing the administration does not have the authority to issue such a rule. Some states, led by Texas, challenged the order in federal court; a federal district judge in Texas sided with them and blocked the order.

The case arose when Gavin Grimm, a 17-year-old student in the Gloucester County public school system who is transgender, sought to begin using the men’s bathroom.

Grimm was born female but identifies as male. Gloucester County schools require transgender students to use alternative bathrooms.

In a suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Grimm claims the district’s policy violates Title IX and the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

Though a district court sided with the schools, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled for Grimm, finding that the courts must defer to Department of Education guidelines requiring schools to treat students consistent to their gender identity to comply with Title IX.

The Supreme Court justices must determine whether an unpublished agency letter that itself does not carry the force of law is subject to “Auer deference,” and also whether the department’s interpretation of Title IX will stand.

Auer deference is a legal doctrine requiring the courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation. The court also was asked to revisit the 1997 Auer ruling in its entirety, but declined to take up that question.

“The Supreme Court has the chance to rein in an executive branch that has once again gone around our laws and the will of the people in violation of the Constitution,” Roger Severino, director of The Heritage Foundation’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, said in a release by the think tank.

Severino noted that the Department of Education determined that it is discriminatory to reasonably accommodate transgender students with private facilities:

Incredibly, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said it was required to defer to the administration’s backward and bizarre rewriting of the law and effectively handed its gavel to the Department of Education.

Across America, schools have been able to address student concerns sensitively and fairly. The last thing they need is a one-sided mandate from the federal government that jeopardizes student privacy.

A date for oral arguments has not yet been set.

In the absence of a ninth justice, the court has declined to schedule arguments in major cases on which they are expected to split along ideological lines. It is possible, then, that the case will not be argued for the foreseeable future. (For more from the author of “Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Transgender School Bathrooms Case” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

4 Reasons Why Trump Could Still Win the Election

/0 Comments/in , /by

My Democratic friends are all smiles these days. They are happily spiking the election football, but are they doing so on the one-yard line? For it might be too early to write off Donald Trump.

Here are four reasons why “President Donald J. Trump” could still happen.

1. Polls show Trump within striking distance

The polling data are not good for Trump, yet polls don’t win elections — votes do. The polls indicate that Trump is going to lose, but the Republican nominee has repeatedly made the point that the turn-out model being used to gauge who is actually going to head to the polls may be flawed. And he may be right.

With only 270 electoral votes needed to secure the election, RealClearPolitics (RCP) has Clinton/Kaine with 272 as of this writing — but a large number of the ticket’s electoral votes are states still listed in the “undecided” category.

As of this writing, RCP average has the national vote at 45.8 percent for Hillary Clinton and 39.9 percent for Trump, with Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, pulling 5.6 percent and Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, at 2 percent. One obvious problem with the polling data being used to gauge support is the inflated numbers for Johnson and Stein. Both ran in the last presidential cycle, and — when the final results were in — Johnson received just 0.99 percent and Stein 0.36 percent of the national vote. It is hard to believe that these two candidates will jump approximately 4 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively.

Looking back at 2012, the polling data was inflated for Johnson and Stein. A CNN poll released on September 10, 2012 had Johnson polling at 3 percent and Stein at 1 percent with likely voters at 4 percent and 2 percent, respectively. Those numbers didn’t pan out then, and we should expect the same distortion in this election.

Currently, Nat Silver’s site, FiveThirtyEight, has Trump with only a 15.3 percent chance of victory. Its map has Clinton winning Nevada, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Iowa in a blowout election. But when you drill down into the numbers, FiveThirtyEight has Clinton up only 3.1 percent in Florida, 0.6 percent in Ohio, and 0.3 percent in Arizona. Those low percentages indicate a very close race that are not reflected in the low probability the website gives Trump.

Looking into Johnson’s numbers state by state, it appears that there may be defects to Silver’s calculations as well. FiveThirtyEight has Johnson at 3.9 percent in Florida, yet he received only 0.5 percent in actual votes in 2012. The same flaw also exists in predictions for Ohio: Johnson has 5.7 percent there, yet in 2012 he pulled only 0.9 percent in actual votes. Arizona is even more extreme. FiveThirtyEight is predicting a 6.1 percent vote for Johnson in the state, yet he received 1.39 percent in actual votes in 2012.

This throws all of the swing states into question and may indicate a bias toward third-party candidates that does not really exist in states that have already been allocated to Clinton.

Furthermore, FiveThirtyEight incorrectly predicted that Trump had no chance of getting the Republican nomination, so it seems more than possible it might have this one wrong too. Silver wrote the following on November 23, 2015:

So, could Trump win? We confront two stubborn facts: first, that nobody remotely like Trump has won a major-party nomination in the modern era. And second, as is always a problem in analysis of presidential campaigns, we don’t have all that many data points, so unprecedented events can occur with some regularity. For my money, that adds up to Trump’s chances being higher than 0 but (considerably) less than 20 percent. Your mileage may vary. But you probably shouldn’t rely solely on the polls to make your case; it’s still too soon for that.

Also, look at recent polls from the LA Times and Investor’s Business Daily, and they have Trump ahead.

All of these data points speak to the fact that this race is still undecided.

2. It’s the economy, stupid

The economy sucks, and traditionally the old James Carville adage “It’s the economy, stupid” rings true on Election Day. The American people may be evenly divided on the record of President Barack Obama, yet no one is happy with the state of the economy.

Alex Wagner detailed this at “The Atlantic” on October 21, 2016 in his piece, “Why Economic Growth Is So Lackluster”:

U.S. economic growth is anemic, and the country needs to do something about it, quickly. This was one of the central themes of the third presidential debate. “China is growing at 7 percent. And that for them is a catastrophically low number. We are growing — our last report came out, and it is right around the 1 percent level,” Trump said Wednesday night. “Look, our country is stagnant.”

Trump is right that U.S. growth has not been very impressive of late, especially when compared to rates of the past. Though the United States gross domestic product (GDP) grew at a rate of more than 3 percent for much of the 1980s and 1990s, the rate has slowed significantly since the recession, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter of this year, for instance, GDP increased at a rate of just 1.4 percent. After a recession, an economy should come roaring back, but this time around, it hasn’t, and that’s left many concerned about the state of the economy. GDP growth, economists say, helps raise wages and living standards, and increases the size of the entire economic pie — making it possible for more people to have a bigger share.

The American middle class feels squeezed, and people in lower income brackets are hurting. Right or wrong, they blame the federal government for their woes and get enraged by politicians who claim that the economy is doing great. President Obama is constantly bragging that he is responsible for bringing unemployment numbers down, but people who are hurting don’t give a rip about economic numbers. They care about making rent or mortgage payments.

Trump’s economic plans include a massive tax cut that will help the engine of our economy create jobs. Trump also wants to reduce the regulatory burden that is holding back many small businesses. Whether you agree or not, he has tagged the Bill Clinton era’s North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as one reason why the Rust Belt is in depression.

The one poll number that points favorably to Trump is from CNN/ORC and has Trump over Clinton as the candidate who would better handle the economy. That just may be the tie breaker when voters make last-minute decisions.

3. Hillary is extremely unpopular

Nothing can help Hillary’s serious lack of popularity and the fact that there is a massive trust deficit between her and the voters. From her bogus claim that she was under sniper fire as first lady when she landed in Bosnia to her ever-changing lies about the handling of classified information while head of the State Department to her flip-flopping on the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal, voters just don’t trust Hillary.

In addition to not being trustworthy, she’s just not funny or likeable. Remember Hillary’s wipe-with-a-cloth joke about hidden emails and a secret server that bombed spectacularly? WikiLeaks disclosures also show she’s tough to deal with as a person, and her staff questions her judgment.

There is also very little enthusiasm for Hillary’s candidacy. The embarrassingly low turnout at her rallies — and for those of her surrogates — speaks to the problem. Just look at how poorly she did in the primaries against Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. (F, 17%). If Hillary had been challenged by a high-profile Democrat like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. (F, 18%) or Vice President Joe Biden, she surely would not have won the nomination.

Hillary’s ‘unlikeability’ may outweigh or matter more than Trump’s own high negatives when it comes to Election Day.

4. Trump’s message resonates with voters who hate Congress and the political elite

Donald Trump has run a nontraditional campaign. He beats the drum that he can “Make America Great Again,” and that is a powerful slogan. Trump has campaigned against politicians in Washington from both parties. Most Americans agree — they loathe politicians at the national level.

RCP polling shows that the 64 percent of American people believe the country is on the wrong track, while other polling indicates that an enormous 35.4 percent of the electorate may vote for change. The congressional approval rating is even worse, with only 15.2 percent approving of the work of politicians in D.C. These numbers indicate that the American people may want to flip the bird to Washington and elect a bombastic individual who will come to Washington and create political bedlam.

Hillary is part of the political establishment that the American people hate. One could argue that Hillary Clinton is the poster child for insider Washington establishment rage. She has lived her life in the D.C. political bubble for decades and has no connection to average Americans. That is why she makes dumb political pronouncements, such as when she said that she would put “a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

Is there a silent majority in America that is willing to go into the election booth, look over both shoulders, then grin while voting for Donald Trump as a way to tell Washington to GFY? We shall see.

When your smiling liberal friends try to rub in the idea of Hillary being sworn in on January 20, 2017, tell them to simmer down and wait for the actual tally of the votes. (For more from the author of “4 Reasons Why Trump Could Still Win the Election” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

There Is No Place for Me in Hillary’s America

/0 Comments/in , /by

I consider myself a patriot, someone who believes in the Constitution, the rule of law and representative government.

Under a President Hillary Clinton, none of those will any longer exist.

Electing Hillary will mean, quite literally, the end of the United States as it was originally designed.

The Constitution will be de facto obsolete; the rule of law will be arbitrarily applied dependent upon one’s financial status or political clout; and we will have a government driven by crony capitalism and political expediency, benefitting only the rich and powerful, and one conspicuous for corruption, fraudulent elections and pseudo-representation.

Under Hillary’s open borders policy, the United States of America will be neither United nor America. It will not be a melting pot, a nation guided by the notion of E Pluribus Unum, but a collection of simultaneous arguments, where the only thing we have in common is our differences.

It will mean a president, who is, without any doubt, hopelessly corrupt and a pathological liar.

It will mean that the organs of government will not be used to enforce the law, but to enforce the political whims of Hillary Clinton, courtesy of the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service.

Because, when blatant and outrageous lies are no longer sufficient to soothe the electorate into complacency, such a government must begin to curtail freedom and oppress the people in order to pursue its policies and remain in power.

For me, one who traveled in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe during the Cold War, Hillary’s approach to government has a familiar ring.

In “Mountain of Crumbs”, a memoir of childhood in the 1960s and 1970s propaganda-soaked Soviet Union, Elena Gorokhova explains the meaning of “vranyo”, the Russian word for “a white lie or half-truth:”

“In Russia we played the ‘vranyo’ game on a daily basis. The government lied to us, we knew they were lying, they knew we knew they were lying, but they kept lying anyway and we pretended to believe them.”

“In practice vranyo provided a coping mechanism for both unbearable tragedies and petty annoyances. Can’t feed your starving children? Tear up a piece of bread to make a mountain of crumbs and declare it an abundance of food.”

Or declare: the failed Obamacare a success, a moribund economy as booming, a world wracked by Islamic terrorism as safer, illegal immigration as beneficial or the Clinton Foundation as honest.

Angelo Cordevilla provides an insightful comment about the 2016 election:

Never before has such a large percentage of Americans expressed alienation from their leaders, resentment, even fear. Some two-thirds of Americans believe that elected and appointed officials — plus the courts, the justice system, business leaders, educators — are leading the country in the wrong direction: that they are corrupt, do more harm than good, make us poorer, get us into wars and lose them. Because this majority sees no one in the political mainstream who shares their concerns, because it lacks confidence that the system can be fixed, it is eager to empower whoever might flush the system and its denizens with something like an ungentle enema.

Hillary Clinton represents that wrong direction, the constipated status quo, while Donald Trump provides a laxative.

The United States under Hillary Clinton will become ungovernable. Millions of Americans, those “basket of deplorables,” who are the bedrock of the country will simply “tune out” the federal government and the media.

Without the Constitution, the rule of law, representative government, a recognizable culture or even defined borders, there is no reason to be patriotic and little reason to participate.

America will become Hillary’s dystopia, the ideological and the incompetent leading the unwilling to do the undesirable. (For more from the author of “There Is No Place for Me in Hillary’s America” please click HERE)

_______________________________________

Sellin holds a Ph.D. is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel, a command and control subject matter expert, trained in Arabic and Kurdish, and a veteran of Afghanistan, northern Iraq and a humanitarian mission to West Africa. He receives email at [email protected].

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Franklin Graham: Media Do Not Want the Political Corruption to Change

/0 Comments/in , /by

Commenting on the “incredible” media bias this election year, evangelical Pastor Franklin Graham said the “corruption” in both political parties is “unbelieveable” and the media, “along with many politicians from both parties, doesn’t want any of this to change.”

“Isn’t the media bias incredible — especially relating to political candidates?” said Rev. Graham in an Oct. 24 post on Facebook. “Geraldo Rivera said last night that it’s like nothing he’s ever seen.”

“They spin story after story against the candidates they don’t like and in favor of the candidates they support,” he said. “I hope and pray that Christians are not deceived by the media’s bias, but will give prayerful consideration as they go to the polls and vote.”

“Our political system in this country is broken,” said Rev. Graham. “The corruption is in both parties and is unbelievable. The media, along with many politicians from both parties, doesn’t want any of this to change.”

“As I went to all 50 states this year and stood on the capitol steps with Christians from every state, we prayed and confessed our sins to God,” he said. “We asked His forgiveness and asked Him to heal this land. My prayer is that you will continue to pray, and that you will vote.” (Read more from “Franklin Graham: Media Do Not Want the Political Corruption to Change” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Donald Trump and the Alt-Right: How Dead Is That Moose?

/0 Comments/in , /by

As I said on a recent British Christian radio show, I would vote for a dead moose strapped to a car hood to stop Hillary Clinton. She has told the UN that Christian beliefs on abortion will have “to be changed” because they threaten the “fundamental rights” of women. That’s legal language, a promise that the U.S. will correct a human rights “violation” under international law. Her profoundly corrupt foundation has taken tens of millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, where rape victims are tortured. Her closest aide, Huma Abedin, is a Muslim Brotherhood ally. Clinton’s policies would flood America with jihadists and “rapefugees.” Her team is trying to infiltrate and destroy my church. Do I really need to go on? Voting to stop her is an act as justified as halting a home invader.

That said, we need to know just how long the moose has been dead, since it’s oozing all over our car. Yes, there is Donald Trump’s personal squalor. But the only difference between him and John F. Kennedy is a live microphone — and the lack of reporters willing to turn aside as the president’s mistresses shuttle back between him, his brother, and various Mafia dons. Bill Clinton has credibly been accused of forcible rape. So let’s have no lectures about the “dignity” of the presidency. That beast died in the barn a long time ago. If you want a respectable head of state where grabby demagogues can’t sully that elevated office, set up a constitutional monarchy. The Brits, Swedes and Danes seem pretty fond of theirs. I bet we could snag a Habsburg.

The Alt-Right: Trump Whisperers

What really worries me about Donald Trump is what some of his most fervent Alt-Right supporters may be telling him: That Christianity is a self-destructive suicide cult that’s destroying Western society. It demands open borders, affirmative action, massive welfare programs that transfer wealth to recent immigrants, legal or not, and will end up exposing any Christian country to mass colonization by thuggish, theocratic Muslims.

Where would the neopagans and atheists of the Alt-Right get such crackpot ideas? Maybe from the words of some U.S. Catholic bishops, “progressive” evangelicals funded by George Soros, and a goodly number of orthodox evangelicals who take most or all of the stances I listed above, but who are also pro-life and pro-marriage. (That’s nice of them!)

The Alt-Right is the repulsive shadow cast by the preening of left wing Christians — the equal and opposite heresy such as Screwtape loves to gin up, to make sure that half of our ship is under water, while the other half is on fire.

The Other Faction of Margaret Sanger Fans

The Alt-Right, unhinged from real Christian doctrines — like equality before God, the brotherhood of man, and charity toward all — has proved to be a nasty reptile indeed. Let’s set aside the online trolls who send Jewish conservatives little cartoons of those writers dying inside a gas chamber. Dismiss as sociopaths those who troll National Review writer David French and his wife, referring to the child they adopted from Ethiopia as a “simian” (or worse), and calling French a “cuckold” or “race traitor.”

Let’s focus on those who want to rehabilitate “eugenics,” and rejigger our country’s welfare policies to discourage the birth of children to blacks and Latinos. Or how about those who go ever further, and wish to keep abortion legal, because they want to cut down the number of non-white children? Just reading what these people write will make you want to take a shower. If they sound like Margaret Sanger, that’s because they admire her ideas and want to carry them out, with a slightly different emphasis than Hillary Clinton.

Could the Alt-Right Lose the Election for Trump?

That we know, but could it be that the Alt-Right also is having a deeply destructive impact on the struggling Trump campaign, by blocking the candidate from genuinely appealing to conservative Christians? How else to explain his failure to highlight the frequent attacks on religious liberty, which is a burning issue for millions of Christians? How else to explain his bizarre failure to show genuine contrition when caught on tape saying grotesque things about a woman? Has he no idea what effect this has on many millions of Christian voters?

We are one of his natural constituencies, as the former majority now targeted by elites for official discrimination. But will he listen to us and shape his policies accordingly? A number of evangelical leaders have worked long hours speaking to Donald Trump, explaining our deep concerns about religious liberty, the First Amendment Defense Act, and solid protections for Christian schools, hospitals, and charities. When pressed, he has promised to support us and denounced the Johnson Amendment. But it has always seemed slightly grudging — especially compared to Hillary Clinton’s full-throated support of partial birth abortion and transgender madness. Trump has never spoken out in defense of beleaguered North Carolina, for instance, whose women and girls might lose their last shred of privacy in bathrooms and locker rooms, if the rich and haughty LGBT movement has its way.

Despite media caricatures, there’s no evidence that Trump holds Alt-Right views. He held conventional liberal views from much of his adult life. But have Alt-Right-sympathizing staffers convinced Donald Trump that Christianity really is nothing but pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die? That, say, showing contrition and asking for forgiveness is not noble and endearing, but ignoble and effeminate?

This is admittedly speculative, but how else to explain why Trump has not said and done such obvious things to appeal to Christian voters? If this is right, then it’s past time for him to correct course, shove aside the embittered tribalists, and embrace the real concerns of people of faith. If he doesn’t, millions of us might decide to sit out this ugly, embittered election. (For more from the author of “Donald Trump and the Alt-Right: How Dead Is That Moose?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pastors, They’re Coming for You!

/0 Comments/in , /by

OK, I get it.

The title of this article sounds conspiratorial and inflammatory. In fact, it sounds like a “shock” headline designed to get your attention. Who, after all, is this ambiguous “they” I’m referring to, and why are “they” coming for “you” — referring obviously to Christian leaders? And what, pray tell, are “they” coming to do to “you?”

So I’ll admit it. I did come up with the title of this article for shock value, but the fact is, you need to be shocked. It is only sensational because it is true.

Consider this October 26 headline on Fox News: “State of Georgia demands pastor turn over sermons.” Yes, “A lay minister who is suing the Georgia Department of Public Health for religious discrimination has been ordered by the state’s attorney general to relinquish his sermons to the government, according to federal court documents.”

In the words of Attorney General Samuel Olens, “Please produce a copy of your sermon notes and/or transcripts.”

And why is the state of Georgia demanding his sermon notes and/or transcripts?

As Todd Starnes reports, “Walsh, a Seventh-day Adventist lay minister had been hired in May 2014 as a District Health Director with the Georgia Department of Public Health. A week later, a government official asked him to submit copies of his sermons for review. He complied and two days later he was fired.”

In other words, he was not fired because of any lack of qualification. To the contrary, he was highly qualified for the job.

As noted by attorney David French, Walsh’s resumé included “working for former President Bush and President Obama to combat AIDS, serving as a board member of the Latino Health Collaborative, and starting California’s first city-run dental clinic for low-income families dealing with HIV/AIDS,” but that “wasn’t sufficient to overcome the horror at Walsh’s Christian views.”

Yes, Walsh was fired for the unpardonable sin of preaching against homosexual practice, based on Scripture — and note that he was preaching this to his fellow-congregants, not giving a lecture to his staff. As Walsh’s lead attorney Jeremy Dys said, “He was fired for something he said in a sermon. If the government is allowed to fire someone over what he said in his sermons, they can come after any of us for our beliefs on anything.”

Yes, continued Dys, “It’s an incredible intrusion on the sanctity of the pulpit. This is probably the most invasive reach into the pulpit by the state that I’ve ever seen.”

It’s No Surprise

But this should not surprise us at all. As I pointed out in 2013:

Already in April, 2009, an article in the Washington Post documented how, “Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.”

This was confirmed by Georgetown Law Professor Chai Feldblum, appointed by President Obama to serve on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and herself an out and proud lesbian, when she remarked that when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

That’s why Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran, was fired for his personally held beliefs about sexuality and marriage.

That’s why Dr. Angela McCaskill, associate provost of diversity and inclusion at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C. (and herself deaf), was suspended from her job for signing a petition at her local church which called for a public vote on same-sex “marriage” (rather than for a legislative decision).

That’s why Crystal Dixon was fired from her position as Associate Vice President of Human Resources at the University of Toledo for writing an editorial in her local newspaper, taking issue with the idea that gay is the new black.

And the list goes on and on, growing on a regular basis, as I and others have documented now for years. (Just check out the chapter “Big Brother Is Watching, and He Really Is Gay” in A Queer Thing Happened to America for some sobering examples.)

And I used these three examples here because in each case, gay sensitivities not only trumped religious rights, they also demonstrated that, when it comes to “gay rights,” even black Americans can be perceived as victimizers rather than victims (Cochran, McCaskill, and Dixon were all black).

As we have now learned with Dr. Walsh (did I mention he’s black as well?), not even the pulpits are safe.

But this too should not surprise us. After all, it was just last year that Annise Parker, the lesbian mayor of Houston, along with the city attorney, David Feldman, demanded that five local pastors turn over their sermons, speeches, presentations, and even emails to congregants which addressed the issues of homosexuality and gender identity, among other subjects.

It was only when Parker and Feldman came under intense national pressure that they backed down, with Parker still denying that “the request[s] were in any way illegal or intended to intrude on religious liberties.” (I document this in detail in the chapter “The Day the Line Was Crossed” in Outlasting the Gay Revolution.)

With all respect to the mayor’s position, her explanation was absolute rubbish, and there is no question that what she did intruded on religious liberties.

The Church Must Resist!

As I warned last week, if Hillary Clinton is elected, this will only get worse. Even if Donald Trump is elected, abuses like this will continue on a local level for years to come. There’s only thing that can stop it, and that is simply the Church of Jesus, led by its pastors and elders, standing up to speak what is right and do what is right, regardless of cost or consequence. If we do, the tide will turn.

Now, I’m quite aware that I sound like a broken record, having written on this theme three times in two weeks, including this article (see here and here).

But I will keep sounding the alarm until God’s people wake up — beginning with the leaders — and with yet another example staring us in the face, we sleep on to our own peril, not to mention our lasting shame.

In recent days, I’ve been reading a terrific book by Dean G. Stroud entitled, Preaching in Hitler’s Shadow: Sermons of Resistance in the Third Reich. And while I am absolutely not comparing our current government to Nazi Germany and while I do not believe we will go the way Nazi Germany went, I can’t help but see the striking parallels between our two countries, beginning with these incremental attacks on religious freedom, back then and today.

And so, while I am not saying that America will one day look like Nazi Germany, I am saying that very soon, America will hardly be recognizable, the antithesis of the “land of the free and the home of the brave.”

After all, who would have believed that in the last two years, government officials would be demanding that pastors and Christian teachers turn over their sermons, sermons notes, and private emails dealing with sexual morality and that, in the last 10 years, Christians would be fired from their jobs or kicked out of their schools because of their privately held, biblical beliefs?

And so, I will say it again. It’s time to wake up! (For more from the author of “Pastors, They’re Coming for You!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.