Khamenei Calls Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Papa B relays this tale, which is Twitter-verified and absolutely true, as far as you know:

Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei calls President-Elect Trump and tells him, “Donald, stay out of office. because last night I had a wonderful dream. I could see America, the whole beautiful country, and on each house I saw a banner.”

“What did it say on the banners?” Trump asks.

Khamenei replies, “United States of Iran.”

Trump says, “You know, I am really happy you called, because believe it or not, last night I had a similar dream. I could see all of Iran…”

“…and it was more beautiful than ever, and on each house flew an enormous banner.”

“What did it say on the banners?” Khamenei asks.

Trump replies, “I don’t know. I can’t read Hebrew.”

(For more from the author of “Khamenei Calls Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

It’s Time to Call out the Left’s Hypocrisy

/0 Comments/in , /by

Please allow me a moment to vent. I assure you that it will be controlled venting, without vitriol, hyperbole or vindictiveness. But venting it will be. Shall we call it holy venting? Perhaps it will also reflect some of the holy frustration in your own heart.

But first, some caveats.

I do understand why many Americans are deeply upset with Donald Trump’s election, and up until election day, I said that I respected those who could not vote for him, urging them instead not to vote for Hillary.

I have also spoken with Mexican Americans and African Americans who have shared their concerns with me, and seeing the world through their eyes, I understand their fears. (Of course, I’ve read many comments from Muslim Americans that express their concerns too.)

What, exactly, will the president’s immigration policy look like, and what, exactly, does he mean by being a “law and order” candidate? And why is it that so many far-right groups both here and abroad are excited about his victory?

I have also heard from enough concerned women, some very close to me, to recognize just how offensive his comments and attitudes have been and to see why they can’t fathom how a God-fearing Christian could vote for him.

And I understand why his high-level appointment of Steve Bannon is so controversial, despite the apparently exaggerated nature of many of the concerns. Is this the way to unify the nation? But having said all that (as a representative sampling of major caveats), I am sick and tired of left-wing hypocrisy, and it needs to be called out.

Let’s focus first on the demonstrations.

Protesters on Cue and Without a Clue

I agree that people have a legal right to demonstrate (but not break the law), and it’s understandable that people are frustrated. But a lot of what’s happening is simply the immature reaction of those who don’t know how to lose or to accept responsibility for why they lost. Get over it.

Ironically (but not unexpectedly), we’re learning that many of those protesting didn’t even vote, so they’re blocking traffic and setting things on fire because of their own lack of participation. Rather than shouting profanities in the streets, they should be looking in the mirror.

Pollster Frank Luntz tweeted, “I saw a Trump protester with a sign on the subway… He said he was 19 … I asked him if he voted, and he said no.” And a report from Portland, Oregon indicated that, “more than half of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland didn’t vote, according to state election records.” What do you know!

And right on cue, race-baiters and responsibility-evaders have raised their heads, claiming that, “The Electoral College Is an Instrument of White Supremacy and Sexism.” A group of civil rights leaders has also stated that, “while racial voter suppression was widespread, voter suppression was generational as well. Millennials, as a multiracial demographic, also were targeted by strict ID laws and poll closings affecting millions of youth, college and high school students, as well as young professionals.”

Seriously? You mean to tell me that is why millennials, along with blacks and Hispanics, did not turn out in the expected numbers? It had nothing to do with lack of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton? As for “strict ID laws,” give me a break. It’s outrageous that voter ID is not universally required, and there are more than enough examples of voter fraud coming to the surface every day. And it is nothing less than absurd to claim that early poll closings particularly affected “millions of youth, college and high school students, as well as young professionals,” as if they of all people can’t make it to the polls on time while older professionals and non-students can.

This is nothing less than the victim mentality that is destroying the left.

As for the left-wing mantra that “love trumps hate,” David Jaroslav aptly remarked, “Love trumping hate involves a lot more assault & arson than I expected.” Indeed! (Jarsolav’s remarks were tweeted by Ben Shapiro.)

So, go ahead and protest, but please don’t call it love. And quit playing the blame game.

What Happened to Respecting the Process?

How about the left’s selective outrage with respecting the election process and the rule of law? The outcry against Donald Trump was shrill when he said that he could not guarantee in advance that he would accept the outcome of the elections for fear that things would be rigged.

Yet now, in the aftermath of those elections, government officials as high as Chicago’s mayor, Rahm Emmanuel, and the Los Angeles police chief, Charlie Beck, have stated that they will defy the order of the president to deport illegals from their city should such an order be made — and Trump has most recently stated that he is referring to illegals who have committed crimes here.

Yet Emmanuel emphasized that, “Chicago will always be a sanctuary city,” while Beck said, “We are not going to engage in law enforcement activities solely based on somebody’s immigration status. We are not going to work in conjunction with Homeland Security on deportation efforts. That is not our job, nor will I make it our job.” There might be nuances to what these men are saying, but again, it’s the issue of hypocrisy.

Just imagine how the left-wing media would be responding had Hillary been elected and a Republican mayor or police chief declared that they would not heed her directives. If they were men, they would have certainly been branded sexist, and the media outrage would be extreme.

Screaming Over Bannon, Silence About Ellison

And since I mentioned Steve Bannon earlier, let’s compare the left-wing media’s almost hysterical reaction to his appointment as Trump’s chief strategist — as if Trump had appointed a neo-Nazi to that position — to that same media’s lack of strong reaction to the possible appointing of Muslim congressman Keith Ellison to the DNC chair. Fox reported that, “Democratic leaders are scrambling to unite behind a candidate for the party’s chairmanship — and have landed for now on a Louis Farrakhan-linked congressman who once called for Dick Cheney’s impeachment and compared George W. Bush to Hitler.”

Apparently, these charges are of little or no concern, but the charge that Bannon is a racist or anti-Semite — a charge vigorously disputed by a Catholic priest, an Orthodox rabbi, and a Harvard professor, among others — is worthy of outrage. Why the glaring double standard? And how many in-depth investigative reports did you hear about Hillary Clinton’s right-hand woman, Huma Abedin, and her alleged connections to radical Islam?

Just imagine if Bannon had the same baggage as did Ellison or Huma. The left-wing media would have even more of a field day. (Again, I’m neither defending Bannon nor accusing Ellison or Huma; I’m addressing the left’s inconsistency and hypocrisy.)

And on and on it goes, with example after example of extreme left-wing hypocrisy. But I’d best stop here rather than belabor the point. And the truth be told, that felt good.

Perhaps you feel better as well? (For more from the author of “It’s Time to Call out the Left’s Hypocrisy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Second Man Convicted, Third Man Arrested for Helping Ex-Lesbian Christian Mother Escape Country With Child

/0 Comments/in , /by

A second man was convicted and a third was recently deported to the U.S. from Nicaragua and arrested in the case of a former lesbian turned Christian mother who fled the country to shield her daughter from what she felt was a dangerous homosexual lifestyle at the hands of her former lesbian partner. The original article was published here.

Defendants

Philip Zodhiates, 61, was convicted of international parental kidnapping and conspiracy to commit international parental kidnapping in September and could be sentenced up to eight years in prison and fined $500,000 at his sentencing hearing on January 30, 2017. Authorities believe Zodhiates drove Lisa Miller and her daughter, Isabelle, to Buffalo, New York where she and the little girl crossed the Rainbow Bridge into Canada.

Timothy “Timo” Miller (not related to Lisa Miller), was detained in Nicaragua in August, 2016 and eventually deported to the United States where he was arrested for his role in helping Lisa Miller and her daughter make their way through Nicaragua. Timo Miller, a missionary in Nicaragua, was snatched suddenly by Nicaraguan officials, leaving his bike in the road, without any word to his family for days. He spent around three months in cramped, dungeon-like conditions until Nicaragua deported him to the U.S. On October 14, 2016, Timo Miller appeared before the United States District Court, Western District of New York, and consented to pretrial detention. He is now being held until his trial begins, unless he reconsiders and moves for a pretrial release.

The Story

Lisa Miller had previously been involved in a lesbian relationship with Janet Jenkins and joined with her in a civil union in Vermont, since their home state of Virginia did not recognize same-sex marriages at the time. In 2001, Lisa Miller underwent fertility treatments and became pregnant with her daughter, Isabella. Isabella was born on April 16, 2002, but within a year, Miller became a Christian and decided to leave the homosexual lifestyle and her relationship with Jenkins. “It wasn’t a struggle,” Lisa told the Washington Post in 2007. “I felt peace.” She began attending a local Baptist church with Isabella and eventually enrolled Isabella in a Christian school where she taught.

In the beginning, Lisa Miller and Jenkins shared custody of Isabella. But when Isabella began exhibiting concerning behaviors, such as wetting the bed, having nightmares, touching herself inappropriately and threatening suicide after her visits with Jenkins, Miller refused to send Isabella for her visitations. After a series of court dates, Janet was awarded custody, which was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2010.

By the end of September, however, Lisa and Isabella were gone.

Lisa, with the help of several Mennonite Christians, fled the country with her daughter to Nicaragua, crossing the Rainbow Bridge from Niagara Falls, New York, to Canada, according to court documents, around September 22, 2009.

The Arrests

Timo Miller was originally arrested in April 2011 for aiding and abetting the “kidnapping” of Isabella. Authorities believed Timothy Miller helped Lisa Miller travel to a “safe house” in Managua, the capital city of Nicaragua.

In December of that year, the prosecution dropped the charges against him in exchange for his testimony and cooperation in their investigation against Mennonite pastor Kenneth Miller (no relation to either Timothy Miller or Lisa Miller).

Kenneth Miller was convicted for “aiding international parental kidnapping” in December 2011 and sentenced 27 months in prison, reported The Charley Project. The pastor of an Amish-Mennonite community, he helped Lisa and Isabelle by getting fellow Amish-Mennonites to purchase plane tickets for a flight from Canada to Nicaragua through Mexico and El Salvador. He also purchased the typical Mennonite dresses, which Lisa and Isabelle wore to conceal their identities.

Standing With Lisa

Before he reported to prison in March of this year, Kenneth wrote on his blog about why he did what he did. “I’m going to prison today because a woman’s faith and modern society collided,” he said. “About 12 years ago Lisa Miller discovered that Jesus of Nazareth was powerful enough to take away her sins. He transformed her life and her lifestyle. In the long, winding journey since then, Lisa has sought to remain true to her Savior and her conscience.”

“I am greatly privileged to stand with Lisa in her quest for truth and freedom,” he added. “Some things can never be locked up inside prison walls. Truth. Conscience. Moral righteousness. And the saving Gospel of Jesus.”

What Now?

Upon hearing of Timo Miller’s 2011 arrest, Lisa Miller and her daughter disappeared from their Jinotega, Nicaragua home and haven’t been seen since. According to the New York Times, authorities believe the two are still in Nicaragua. Isabella is now 14 years old.

Liberty Counsel’s Rena M. Lindevaldsen, co-counsel with Mathew Staver on Lisa’s case, said that she knew Lisa could go to prison if caught and that would hurt Isabella, but she doesn’t blame Lisa. “It’s sad that in America a woman was faced with this choice,” she said. “The court overstepped its bounds, calling someone a parent who is not a parent and turning a child over to a person who lives contrary to biblical truths.” (For more from the author of “Second Man Convicted, Third Man Arrested for Helping Ex-Lesbian Christian Mother Escape Country With Child” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Everyone, Take a Chill Pill: Trump Is Neither Satan or the Savior

/0 Comments/in , /by

As the reality of President-elect Trump sets in, emotions continue to run high. Riots are rocking big cities such as Portland, Seattle, and San Jose. Hillary supporters are screaming “Not my president!” on Twitter. And the calls for “healing” and “togetherness” from Barack Obama and Clinton herself are being roundly rejected.

I have gay friends who believe that Trump is gunning for them and say they don’t feel safe. They worry that he will roll back gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws and think that he has a personal vendetta against them. Meanwhile, I have friends on the Right who are gleefully gloating that Trump will change everything, that he’s overthrown the political establishment, and that things like illegal immigration and Obamacare might as well be history.

Let’s all take a step back and remind ourselves that we still have a government of more than one person, with legislative and judicial processes that have to be followed.

Yes, it’s true that Republicans will control both the House and Senate as well as the presidency. United government can be a scary thing, especially if you want the government to do as little as possible, as I do. But Republicans hold only a narrow majority in the Senate — either 51 or 52 seats, depending on how Louisiana goes. This is well short of the 60-vote majority that is needed to stop a Democratic filibuster. And while it is possible that Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 40%) will employ the so-called “nuclear option” to pass legislation with a simple majority, we have to remember that there are still plenty of moderate Republican senators. It’s not going to be easy for McConnell to muster even a simple majority to pass anything as controversial as Social Security reform or even a repeal of Obamacare.

I spent years working with an advocacy organization trying to get Republican legislators to stand up to Obama and push back against the Democratic agenda. I think most people in America would be surprised to learn how difficult that task was. It’s easy to think of lawmakers as being motivated by ideology: If they have the chance to do something, they will.

In my experience, this is true only for a very small minority. Much more pressing is the fear of losing re-election. The next election is always only two years away, and this is a fact that is never far from the mind of most lawmakers. They will avoid taking big risks, resorting to the age-old adage “Now is not the time.”

And speaking of the nuclear option, I can only assume that the people who think Trump will bring about the nuclear holocaust just don’t understand how government works. The president can’t just launch a nuclear missile whenever he feels like it. There are other people involved in that decision, people with enough foreign policy experience and common sense to know that mutually assured destruction is not a desirable outcome.

The main thing Trump might — and could — do on his own initiative would be slow down and roll back some executive branch regulations, from the EPA, Health and Human Services, and other agencies. That would be great, but don’t expect Obamacare to get repealed in its entirety tomorrow, Trump fans. It’s something we should push for, to be sure, but we have to remember that the political optics of “taking away people’s health insurance” has given Republicans cold feet before, and it will do so again.

It’s worth remembering that there is a difference between campaign rhetoric and actually governing. Since the election, Trump has already walked back his campaign promises to prosecute Hillary Clinton and overturn the gay marriage decision. He has even started to waver on his famous border wall, rolling out an immigration plan that doesn’t look too dissimilar from Barack Obama’s. It’s foolish to believe anything a politician says on the campaign trail, much less to believe it so strongly that you’re willing to riot over it.

The president is not a dictator. Not yet, anyway. A Trump presidency will see some changes in the country, but not so much as to make it unrecognizable. We will not wake up the day after inauguration to either a right-wing capitalist utopia or a pre-enlightenment land of death camps and intolerance. Trump will govern as other presidents have governed, fighting some good fights, exceeding his authority in some places, and generally accomplishing less than anyone hoped or feared. I don’t begrudge anyone their celebrations; I don’t begrudge anyone their mourning. But a little dose of reality never hurt anyone. (For more from the author of “Everyone, Take a Chill Pill: Trump Is Neither Satan or the Savior” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Enemies of the Republic: Liberals Want to Abolish the Electoral College Because They Lost

/0 Comments/in , /by

Rather than earnestly address the reasons Hillary Clinton lost the game she was playing, some in the Democratic Party are now simply trying to change the rules.

Following a series of creeds trying to tie the Electoral College to slavery in the wake of Donald Trump’s victory, multiple news outlets began reporting Tuesday that Clinton’s lead in the national popular vote has since passed the 1 million mark, adding to the furor of those who wish to see the republican institution of the Electoral College abolished in favor of a direct democratic vote.

On Tuesday, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. (F, 4%) introduced a bill to abolish the Electoral College, calling it “an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society.”

“In my lifetime, I have seen two elections where the winner of the general election did not win the popular vote,” reads a statement from Sen. Boxer. “One person, one vote!”

Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., (F, 2%) concurred with Boxer on the Senate floor, saying that he’s “not seen anything like [what] we’re seeing today in America. A man who lost the popular vote by 2 million votes is now president-elect.”

This won’t happen. This shouldn’t happen. Ever.

Those upset by last week’s results can continue to clamor that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote all they like but this is nothing more than political pandering to, and by, disaffected voters.

Switching to a popular vote would require a constitutional amendment. In order to amend the Constitution, in its current form, the proposed bill would need the support of two-thirds of both chambers of Congress, and then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Good luck with that.

Even in the event of a filibuster-proof Democrat majority in the Senate and a 292 majority in the House, 75 percent of the states of this Union would never go for something that would disenfranchise their citizens to such a degree. (Alternatively, there is the yet-realized national convention for constitutional amendments, as well.)

Were the Electoral College be abolished, the only relevant states, nay, counties, whose voices would be heard at all would be those with dense populations. The concerns of our fellow citizens would be an afterthought behind the demands of the Acela corridor, California coast, Chicago, Seattle, and a handful of other urban locales. States without those population hubs need not apply, the concerns of their citizens need not be considered.

It makes complete sense that a California senator introduced the measure. Should it pass, her constituents would have a ridiculously lopsided voice in the way the rest of the 49 states are governed.

Put simply, the Electoral College is no less relevant in the 21st century than is the freedom of the press in the age of the 24-hour news cycle. This recent effort to change presidential elections is nothing short of a desperate messaging bill that would never pass, precisely for the reasons it exists.

Benjamin Franklin once famously told his fellow citizens in Philadelphia that America had “a Republic … if you can keep it.” The Electoral College is one of the means by which we do so. Senator Barbara Boxer calls the practice a “disaster for democracy,” and there is some merit to what she says. But we do not have a democracy.

Our system of government is a republic, one where the concerns of Manhattan, Chicago, and L.A. County do not get to railroad those of Kansas, Wisconsin, Wyoming, or Indiana. The Electoral College ensures that our commander in chief is responsive to the needs of the whole, not a privileged few population hubs. One where the votes of the rancher in Montana and the factory worker in Michigan are not railroaded by the cabals of college-educated elites on our coasts.

Ours is representative government, not mob rule.

Those upset by 2016’s results certainly have a very sympathetic base going forward. But again: Now is the time for Democrats to take a serious look in the mirror about why they lost (the Washington Examiner has some sound thoughts on the subject, as does CR’s Rob Eno) — not move the goal posts. (For more from the author of “Enemies of the Republic: Liberals Want to Abolish the Electoral College Because They Lost” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Republicans Begin to Unite Around Obamacare Repeal Plan

/0 Comments/in , /by

House and Senate budget leaders, along with conservative lawmakers, are beginning to unite around a proposal that would avoid a filibuster from Senate Democrats and put a bill repealing key provisions of Obamacare on President-elect Donald Trump’s desk not long after his inauguration—a bill that is likely to earn his signature.

Republicans’ talks of repealing the Affordable Care Act became a possibility following Trump’s victory over Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton last week.

In the days following the election, scholars and lawmakers began floating plans to unravel the health care law.

But now, House and Senate budget leaders have endorsed a proposal that involves Congress passing two budget resolutions—one for 2017 and one for 2018—early next year, the first of which would instruct lawmakers to use a budget tool called “reconciliation” to dismantle the health care law.

Under reconciliation, legislation under consideration by the Senate needs just a simple majority, 51 votes, to pass, blocking a filibuster by Senate Democrats.

Because Congress failed to pass a budget resolution for 2017—a proposal stalled in the House—budget experts say Republicans could pass a revamped fiscal roadmap for next year, one that includes reconciliation instructions for Obamacare’s repeal.

To ease the transition for consumers, that reconciliation bill would likely have a delayed enactment date to give congressional Republicans time to craft and pass a replacement plan.

After passing a budget resolution for 2017, GOP lawmakers could then craft a second budget resolution for 2018, which could also include reconciliation instructions to tackle another legislative priority, such as an overhaul of the tax system.

Using this two-budget approach to repeal Obamacare would give Republicans the chance to put a bill dismantling the health care law on Trump’s desk soon after his Jan. 20 inauguration, lawmakers said.

“I think having the opportunity to have two reconciliation bills as opposed to one, two reconciliation processes as opposed to one, is wise,” House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga., told CQ.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., also endorsed the plan, according to Politico.

Enzi told Politico that this double reconciliation strategy would allow Republicans to address their top legislative initiatives without having to worry about filibusters from Senate Democrats.

Price and Enzi are at the helm of the committees that draft the budget resolutions that would include reconciliation instructions.

Not only have Congress’s budget leaders endorsed the use of reconciliation to dismantle the health care law, but the strategy also earned the support of House conservatives, who have long said they have an obligation to voters to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

“Health care will be better and more affordable when Obamacare is repealed, plain and simple,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told reporters Wednesday. “Everyone understood that as a huge issue in the election.”

“We have to use the reconciliation process, so let’s do it the right way, but let’s do it as quickly as we possibly can,” he continued. “It was part of the mandate that the American people sent to this town last week.”

Congressional Republicans have voted more than 60 times to repeal Obamacare and were only successful in getting a repeal bill, passed using reconciliation, to President Barack Obama’s desk earlier this year.

Because the GOP will lack the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster from Senate Democrats—Republicans will hold 52 seats in the next Congress—Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., said reconciliation is the only way to ensure such a bill gets to Trump.

“The only guarantee is to go through reconciliation. The Senate will never get a repeal of Obamacare off the floor. They’ve never been able to get an appropriations bill off the floor,” Salmon told reporters Wednesday. “So when it comes to heavy lifting for something as major as this, it’s probably going to have to be like we did it through the reconciliation process again.”

To successfully repeal Obamacare using reconciliation in 2017, congressional Republicans could follow a blueprint they mapped out in 2015.

That year, GOP lawmakers drafted a budget resolution for 2016 that included instructions for budget committees in both chambers to draft a reconciliation bill repealing the Affordable Care Act.

Their legislation ultimately repealed the law’s individual and employer mandates, Medicaid expansion, tax credits, and the medical device and Cadillac taxes. The reconciliation bill also stripped the government of its authority to run Obamacare’s state and federal exchanges, and lessened the fines for failing to comply with the mandates to $0.

Both chambers of Congress ultimately passed the bill, but Obama vetoed the legislation.

House Republicans then attempted to override the president’s veto, but lacked the two-thirds majority needed to do so.

Now that Republicans will control both the executive and legislative branches in 2017, GOP lawmakers have said they plan to follow through on their promises to repeal Obamacare.

Just one day after Trump won the presidency, Republican leaders were laying out their agenda for the 115th Congress, with the health care law topping the list.

“I would be shocked if we didn’t move forward and keep our commitment to the American people,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said last week.

Republicans have discussed a replacement for the Affordable Care Act, though an official bill doesn’t yet exist.

Several GOP lawmakers have drafted their own individual proposals over the last few years, and Speaker Paul Ryan rolled out a replacement plan in June under the Wisconsin Republican’s “A Better Way” agenda.

According to CQ, it’s unclear if the GOP’s plan would be included in a reconciliation bill repealing the health care law or when a proposal would be rolled out. (For more from the author of “Republicans Begin to Unite Around Obamacare Repeal Plan” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lawmaker Proposes Bill That Could Defund Post-Election Student Coping Sessions

/0 Comments/in , /by

“Suck it up, buttercup,” an Iowa lawmaker tells college students upset over President-elect Donald Trump’s win.

“I’m trying to prepare kids for the fact that life is going to hand you lemons,” Iowa state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, told The Daily Signal. “And every time it does, if you don’t get your way, you don’t get to go into a cry room.”

After Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, professors canceled college classes and students held a cry-in, used coloring books, and played with Play-Doh, among other reactions from universities around the country.

“I don’t think that universities are doing their job … of preparing people for adult life,” Kaufmann said. He added:

Because when your car breaks down, when your kids get sick, when you get a first bad job review, you don’t get to go to a cry room, you don’t get to go play with Play-Doh or color books. You have to be an adult. That was the inspiration for the name ‘Suck it up, buttercup.’

Kaufmann expects to introduce the “Suck it up, buttercup” bill in January. The bill would clarify rules on state tax dollars funding “cry zones,” election-related sit-ins, and grief counseling set up at public universities.

“As I saw other universities using taxpayer money on Play-Doh and coloring rooms for people who couldn’t handle the election results, I had a significant number of my constituents reaching out saying, ‘Hey, make sure my tax dollars aren’t being used for that,’” Kaufmann said.

The three state universities in Iowa have not used extra money on post-election coping sessions, The Des Moines Register reported.

“I made it crystal clear to people that I have no problem with guidance counseling. I have no problem with these services that were already set up,” Kaufmann said. “What I had an issue with is any possible new dollars that were going to be contributed towards this cause while the tuition continues to skyrocket.”

In Iowa, protesters blocked and briefly closed Interstate 80 last week.

“This time nothing happened, but they promised to do it again and heaven forbid somebody is headed to the hospital or someone could possibly get hurt or die from this,” Kaufmann said.

Kaufmann said his bill will increase penalties for people who block interstates.

“I think people have been frustrated a lot with the post-election protests,” the Iowa lawmaker said, adding:

I believe in your right to protest. I believe in your right to defend. But when you see people looting, rioting, throwing bricks through windows, stomping on police cars, blocking interstates, all because of a fair election … You know the caveat for me here is you got President [Barack] Obama coming out and saying, ‘Hey guys, we lost this time. Let’s move on.’ And when your top guy is saying that and you’re still out there blocking interstates and throwing bricks through windows, that to me is hysteria that is making a lot of people mad.

Kaufmann says he has a problem with protesters putting the lives of his constituents in danger and wasting people’s tax dollars. He believes this message has “struck a nerve with people.”

“Surprisingly enough, I’ve gotten a significant amount of support from people from almost every state across the country that say that they want to see my finished product, they can see this become more of a national movement than just Iowa movement,” Kaufmann said. (For more from the author of “Lawmaker Proposes Bill That Could Defund Post-Election Student Coping Sessions” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Contribution to Our Identity Politics Climate

/2 Comments/in , /by

While in Greece this week, President Barack Obama called the anxieties about national, cultural, and ethnic identities that impacted this election a “volatile mix.” He attributed this angst, though, to impersonal forces such as globalization, deindustrialization, and social media.

It wasn’t him. For eight years, the president said, he’s been working hard against approaches “that pit people against each other.”

The president is being uncharacteristically modest here. While he didn’t himself start the multicultural, identity politics process—we have a long list to blame for that—he’s done more than his share to contribute to the present climate.

As New York University professor Jonathan Haidt told Vox in an interview on Wednesday on the problems roiling the West, “the economic issues are much less than half the story … diversity, immigration, and multiculturalism are right at the heart of the problem in Western democracies.”

“Identity politics is like throwing sand in the gears … a world in which factions are based on race and ethnicity, rather than economic interests, that’s the worst possible world.”

And time and again, Obama stoked the two forces that militate against the nation state today: subnational groups and supranational threats. When speaking to ethnic groups, he hawked the victimhood that is the bonding agent of multiculturalism; when Congress stood in his way, he circumvented it by going to the United Nations.

First let’s look at what Obama said. Standing next to Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, one of the leftist firebrands who have emerged in an anti-globalization wave in Europe, the president was asked whether he had underestimated anger and fear in America. As is his wont, Obama wasn’t brief.

“I think there are a whole range of factors involved,” the president averred. “I do think there is a common theme that we have seen in a lot of advanced economies and that we’ve seen around the world, although they manifest themselves in a number of ways.” He continued:

Globalization combined with technology, combined with social media and constant information, have disrupted people’s lives, sometimes in very concrete ways. A manufacturing plant closes and suddenly an entire town no longer has what was the primary source of employment. But also psychologically. People are less certain of their national identity, or their place in the world. It starts looking different and disorienting.

And there is no doubt that that has produced a populist moment on the left and right in many countries in Europe. When you see a Donald Trump and a Bernie Sanders, both two very unconventional candidates have considerable success, then obviously there’s something there that’s being tapped into, a suspicion of globalization. A desire to reign in its excesses, a suspicion of elites and governing institutions that people think may not be responsive to their immediate needs. That sometimes gets wrapped up in ethnic identity or religious identity or cultural identity. That can be a volatile mix. It’s important to recognize that those trends have always been there and it’s the job of leaders to address people’s real legitimate concerns and channel them in the most constructive ways possible. …

The more aggressively and effectively that we deal with those issues, the less that those fears may channel themselves into counterproductive approaches that pit people against each other. Frankly, that’s been my agenda for the last eight years.

We don’t all remember it this way. If a phrase sticks in our minds it is when during the 2010 elections Obama brazenly called on Hispanics to say, “we’re gonna punish our enemies and were gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”

There was also the time when he addressed the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and, after telling a 75-year-old story of how an L.A. cop had humiliated a Mexican-American (this while the country was reeling with anti-police agitation), he called on Hispanics to rally to the Democrats.

Obama has carried this self-serving message of “you’re a victim, vote for us” whether he was meeting with Americans of Asian background, African background, or of the Muslim faith.

Nobody denies that there are people who harbor racist or bigoted views in America—or any country. But you shouldn’t be allowed to pursue a divide and conquer, hyper-partisan strategy for eight years and then say, “Who, me?”

This has been his record with subnational groups. As for transnational threats to American sovereignty, the president has done an end-run around the elected U.S. Congress—a supposedly co-equal branch of government—by running to the United Nations on the Iran deal, nuclear testing, and a global climate deal.

Just three weeks ago, and acting entirely out of spite, he ordered our U.N. ambassador to abstain from a U.N. vote against the Cuban embargo. This is a law that was passed by the Congress, which is elected by the American people, while the U.N. includes the world’s worst dictatorships.

Americans are indeed less certain of their national identity and their place in the world, as the president said, but chalking it up to the internet and cheap jeans from China is a bit disingenuous.

Obama is rightly getting kudos everywhere for being such a class act during this transition period. But it would behoove him—and liberals in general, especially—to do some self-analysis of how exactly they have stoked popular disquiet about what’s happening to America. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Contribution to Our Identity Politics Climate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dear Dejected Hillary Supporters, Stop Trying to Make the Electoral College About Slavery!

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Adding to the ever-growing list of scapegoats for Hillary Clinton’s presidential election loss to Donald Trump, mainstream and leftist voices have now turned their harangues and calumnies toward the Electoral College.

Now that the mewls of “Hillary won the popular vote” have been exhausted, her apologists are going after the institution of the Electoral College (and, by association, the Constitution), with more and more tying its historic heritage to slavery. These attacks on the function of the college are not only inaccurate, they ignore the complexity, nuance, and statesmanship necessary to even have a constitution in the first place.

In the days following Clinton’s loss, Vox was one of the first notable outlets to scapegoat the Electoral College, due to the fact that slavery existed during the birth of the U.S. Constitution. In an interview with Professor Akhil Reed Amar of Yale, they hammer the point that the college simply existed to protect the institution of slavery.

PBS Newshour cites another professor at a Canadian university, who says most would be “disgusted” at the true origins and relationship between the Electoral College and the institution of slavery. All the while, he cites a speech that James Madison gave at the Constitutional Convention in which Madison called the disparity of suffrage between states a “serious problem.” (It is also worth noting that an editor’s note indicates that the article’s author initially got the winner of the 1800 election wrong.)

Elsewhere, Slate — in typical fashion — simply asserts that the institution is an “instrument of white supremacy” akin to “mass incarceration.”

Finally, news broke Tuesday that Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. (F, 4%) has introduced a bill to abolish the Electoral College, calling the process “an outdated, undemocratic system,” that unfairly robbed Hillary Clinton of the presidency.

This is a shocking response to the fact that the Electoral College does and did exactly what it was supposed to do. As CR’s Rob Eno recently explained, the electoral vote guards against the tyranny of the dense population centers over the rest of the country (as it did Nov. 8). When numbers from Boxer’s home state of California alone are removed from the total tallies, Trump not only wins the Electoral College, but a sizeable chunk of the popular vote as well. Put simply, we live in a federal republic, not Mob-rule-istan.

In a recent column at The Wall Street Journal, Hillsdale College President Dr. Larry Arnn explains flawlessly:

The Constitution is paradoxical most of all about power, which it grants and withholds, bestows and limits, aggregates and divides, liberates and restrains. Elections are staggered, so as to distribute them across time. The founding document also divides power across space; the people grant a share of their natural authority to the federal government, but another share to the states where they live.

…

We forget that it is a historical rarity to have an executive strong enough to do the job but still responsible to the people he governs. The laws in the U.S. have worked that miracle for longer than anywhere else. Remember that the Electoral College helps establish the ground upon which the American people must talk with each other, while ensuring that they are not ruled as colonies from a bunch of blue capitals, nor from a bunch of red ones.

But this is only half the problem with progressives’ recent detractions from the document. The rest lies with trying to slander the Electoral College because of an historical relationship with slavery.

Probably the best explanation of this complexity came from a professor who told me that the founders and the framers were incapable of freeing the slaves at that time because they were barely capable of freeing themselves.

Yes, thanks to the complex nature of slavery and the early republic and the impossibility of creating a document that would be unanimously ratified in Virginia, South Carolina, New York Massachusetts, and Maine, (for a better understanding of these, I recommend a viewing of the movie “1776”; it takes just under 2.5 hours and there’s singing. Easy day.) it is impossible to say that it is not connected. But to slander the college on this connection alone is fallacious and reductionist, ignoring the manifold concerns that were addressed in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Simply because the college coexisted in a document with slavery does not mean that it was specifically designed to preserve and protect the institution. What about the concerns of smaller, non-slaveholding states like Connecticut and others — which also feared that large town centers would eventually overshadow their representation in the Union? What of the urban/rural divides that decided the election this cycle?

In other words, if you’re going to slander and throw out the Electoral College simply because of its proximity to those compromises, you may as well dismantle our entire federal order and bulldoze every monument to every person present at the Constitutional Convention. History, especially in these contexts, is far more complex than you want it be.

Slavery was indeed our country’s original sin — one in atonement for which we fought a long and bloody Civil War that nearly destroyed our Union. Its relationship to our founding documents is as shameful as it is complex. But rather than throwing babies out with the bathwater, it would do us well as a people to recognize these complexities rather than reducing them to the fallacy of the day.

In other words, those upset by 2016’s results would do better to just admit that they want to change the game that their candidate lost, rather than reaching for justifications to slander the rulebook. (For more from the author of “Dear Dejected Hillary Supporters, Stop Trying to Make the Electoral College About Slavery!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Illegals Demand Obama Issue Mass Pardons Amid Trump Deportation Fears

/0 Comments/in , /by

Illegal immigrants are preparing to ask President Obama to pardon some 750,000 Dreamers, saying such a move is their last, best hope to stave off what they fear will be a wave of deportations once Donald Trump takes the Oval Office.

Community leaders have planned a rally in New York on Wednesday to make the request.

“Millions of law abiding undocumented immigrants are fearful of what will happen when the new Administration takes control in January,” the group of New York state lawmakers and immigration advocates said in a statement announcing the rally. “However, President Obama has the power of pardons that he can use to protect all DACA enrollees.”

As of September, more than 740,000 illegal immigrants had been approved for Mr. Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, a minor amnesty that grants young adult illegal immigrants a two-year stay of deportation and issues them work permits, entitling them to driver’s licenses and some taxpayer benefits.

Mr. Trump has signaled that he would cancel that order, leaving Dreamers out of status when their work permits expire. That puts Mr. Obama in a bind because he has expressed an interest in helping illegal immigrants but also has acknowledged limits on power. (Read more from the author of “Illegals Demand Obama Issue Mass Pardons Amid Trump Deportation Fears” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.