Leftist Mobsters Lambaste College Bands Playing at Trump’s Inauguration … Because ‘Tolerance’

/0 Comments/in , /by

College marching bands invited to perform at the 58th Presidential Inaugural Parade are being pressured to turn down the offer or face the wrath of the oh-so-tolerant anti-Trump camp.

The Olivet Nazarene University Tiger marching band received backlash from alumni who launched an online petition urging the faith-based Illinois school to withdraw from the event. The petition claims that President-elect Donald Trump has “consistently articulated and advocated policies that undermine the Christian commitments of communities like Olivet”:

His well-documented sexism, his political alliances with white supremacists, and his hostility towards immigrants and refugees are just a few positions incompatible with Christian teachings in general and the Nazarene message of holiness in particular.

…

For Olivet to embody the faith it proclaims, we have a responsibility to stand with those marginalized by the President-elect’s divisive rhetoric rather than march in celebration of it.

Marist College, a private liberal arts school in New York, confirmed last month that their band will perform at the parade. Since then, the school has received the typical leftist outrage reactions from social media users:

Jennifer Hoffman, a 2003 Marist College alum, even created a petition requesting the school to reconsider its decision to play at the parade:

We are all disappointed with the Marist’s decision to participate in Trump’s inauguration. Trump’s history of racism, bigotry and sexism does not reflect Marist College values. We are concerned that participating in this inauguration will send the message that Marist supports Trump’s values, even if that is not the college’s intention.

“Celebrating a transition to this administration celebrates an election which overrode the votes of millions, and a candidate who regularly advocates for hateful, not peaceful, behavior,” Hoffman writes.

Talladega College, the oldest historically black college in Alabama, has probably received the harshest rebuke for accepting Trump’s invitation to have its marching band perform at the parade, despite campus protests, alumni petitions, and social media posts condemning the decision.

“After how black people were treated at Trump’s rallies, you’re going to go and shuck and jive down Pennsylvania Avenue? For what?” Seinya SamForay, one of many commenters on the school’s social media pages, told the AP. “What they did is a slap in the face to other black universities.”

Twitter users called the move “shameful” and an “outrage”:

Despite all the insanity, Talladega College President Billy Hawkins recently confirmed that the band will participate in the parade and dropped some awesome truth-bombs in the process. In a statement released last week, Hawkins noted the extra-political significance of performing at such a monumental event.

“As many of those who chose to participate in the parade have said, we feel the inauguration of a new president is not a political event but a civil ceremony celebrating the transfer of power,” Hawkins said.

Talladega University alumni and Hampton University President William R. Harvey described the parade as a valuable opportunity for students to learn “the importance of supporting the leader of the free world, despite one’s political viewpoint.”

“It will be a wonderful learning experience for the students in the band. It will be a teachable moment for them to understand the importance of supporting the leader of the free world, despite one’s political viewpoint,” Harvey said. “After all, the reason for being of any college or university should be to promote learning and not to enhance apolitical agenda.”

The school has also received overwhelming support from online donors who contributed to a GoFundMe campaign to help cover expenses like travel and lodging. In less than two weeks, the page has raised more than $285,000, far surpassing the initial goal of $75,000.

While many other college and university bands have chosen to boycott the Inauguration Day festivities, Olivet Nazarene, Marist, Talladega, will have the privilege of performing for millions of viewers. These schools should be commended for their courage to stand up against the SJW speech police and their willingness to honor the presidency, regardless of who fills that office. (For more from the author of “Leftist Mobsters Lambaste College Bands Playing at Trump’s Inauguration … Because ‘Tolerance'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Harsanyi: The Comforting Fictions of Obama’s Farewell Speech

/0 Comments/in , /by

Watching President Barack Obama’s soaring 2008 Democratic National Convention speech in Denver, I never imagined the kind of turmoil his presidency would incite. Almost everything has changed in the subsequent years, and yet his farewell speech to the nation was brimming with the same brand of haughty lecturing.

Obama loves to conflate progressivism and patriotism, pitting the forces of decency and empathy — his own — against the self-serving profiteers and meddling reactionaries who stand in the way. All of it is swathed in phony optimism.

The president’s central case for government’s existence rests on the notion of the state being society’s moral center, engine of prosperity, and arbiter of fairness. Obama speaks of government as a theocrat might speak of church, and his fans return the favor by treating him like a pope. This was true in 2008. And it’s true now. Just check out liberal Twitterdom.

And for the most part, nothing is his fault.

“When Congress is dysfunctional,” Obama explained, “we should draw our districts to encourage politicians to cater to common sense and not rigid extremes.” For the president, a dysfunctional Congress is a Congress unwilling to pass progressive legislation. That is not the definition of dysfunctional, I’m afraid. Nor is it the definition of extreme.

There is nothing in the Constitution instructing legislators to acquiesce to the president. In the near future, the Republican Congress will be passing tons of legislation, and I can assure you neither Obama nor his many fans in the media will be celebrating the fact that Congress is finally “getting stuff done” or “doing its job.” Progress will no longer be measured in the number of bills signed.

And it shouldn’t be. After all, if voters were displeased with the way legislators treated Obama’s agenda, they had the ability to replace these obstinate lawmakers with more cooperative ones. They did not. That’s because gridlock was created by a party that fooled itself into believing it could rule unilaterally. Also, after Democrats passed their massive health care law — and certainly, there were other reasons — Republicans kept expanding their majorities, and not only in Congress.

Americans voted for equilibrium in Washington, D.C. Congress was working exactly as it was intended. And it has nothing to do with gerrymandering or voter suppression or fake news or any of the other excuses liberals keep concocting to explain their troubles.

Moreover, the idea that Congress is catering to some “rigid extremes” because elected officials oppose policies that were passed in 2010 might be the prevailing opinion on the Left, but it has no basis in reality. Republican positions — like them or not — are well within the boundaries of normal American attitudes. Most of them were mainstream liberal positions not that long ago.

That brings me to this nugget: In his farewell address, Obama warned, “Our democracy is threatened whenever we take it for granted” (Because we don’t talk about politics enough, apparently!) and urged Americans to help rebuild “our democratic institutions.”

Our democracy isn’t in trouble. We just had an election, in which every citizen permitted to vote — and motivated — could do so. Our Electoral College, part of a broader system that most fairly embodies the will of voters in the nation’s 50 states, also worked exactly as intended.

Maybe Obama means we must rebuild our belief in the separation of powers and the Constitution, since his administration displayed far more creativity in executive power than it ever did in attempting to build coalitions to pass legislation.

He regularly ignored norms of governance, consistently losing cases before the Supreme Court, entering into international agreements without the Senate, creating immigration policy for millions without Congress and using the administrative state to legislate environmental policies that couldn’t even pass when Democrats controlled both houses. Those abuses were not normal.

Obama offered Americans a revisionist history of his entire presidency, casting himself as a resilient truth-teller and champion of democracy. The reality is quite different. (For more from the author of “Harsanyi: The Comforting Fictions of Obama’s Farewell Speech” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

6 Issues That Should Dominate Trump’s Foreign Policy Agenda

/0 Comments/in , /by

The American people elected Donald Trump to exact conservative change here at home, thus his focus on his domestic agenda.

But when the focus does turn to foreign policy, he and the GOP also need to show that they heard the voters! President Obama’s election demonstrated voters’ disgust for adventures abroad. Similarly, President-elect Trump’s indicated that voters do not want to see the United States kicked around.

Here are some priorities to help the new administration color inside voters’ lines:

1. Radical Islam, radical Islam, radical Islam

Fighting that insipid ideology is Trump’s lodestar. When Tip O’Neill coined the phrase “all politics is local” he did not have in mind Islamists in Orlando, but that does not mean it does not apply.

2. The South China Sea.

President Obama delegated our security interests there to the UN. The result should be no mystery. Rebuilding our standing will require steadfast leadership, more than just economic threats, and new alliances, not just a show of force. Doing just the latter will bring out China’s fishing boat navy. Voters will not tolerate shooting them; nor will they accept our Navy being run off … so the new administration must avoid policies that present that binary choice.

Reversing China’s eight-year shopping spree will take time, so Trump should set expectations accordingly.

3. Iran.

Trump must rebuild our regional containment system. Wrecking Obama’s naive nuclear deal is not enough. That means reconstituting our regional alliances, undermining Iran’s radical Islamic ideology, ripping out Hezbollah root and branch around the globe, and learning to love Iraq (the invasion and regime change happened almost 14 years ago in our rearview mirror. We must stop treating it as untouchable).

4. Spread the pain.

President George W. Bush launched the multilateral Six-Party Talks in 2003 in response to North Korea’s bad behavior. This diplomatic exploratory surgery gifted North Korea a large stage on which to act out. Importantly, it also meant the U.S. owned the issue, giving countries like China and Russia leverage over us.

When North Korea acts up again, ask first how to get it off the U.S. docket. Convincing China to own the response is smart statecraft, and sounds like a negotiation worthy of Donald Trump.

Likewise, allies can provide in-kind burden sharing. For example, with American support, the Balts, Georgia, Ukraine, etc., can keep Putin busy.

Trump must keep this in mind as the multitude of rogue states vies for his attention. Already, Russia, a country that should be in our peripheral vision, inspires a national freak-out.

5. Israel.

Do not just stymie immoral UN behavior; bring the pain to Turtle Bay. Of course, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. And, for the love of God, the Oslo Process, ongoing since 1993 (actually, since the 1979 Camp David Accords), will never — never —work. Settlements do not prevent peace.

Palestinian Islamic extremism does. Target Iran’s sponsorship of groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Push for Arab recognition of Israel. Help alleviate our ally’s existential security threats. Only then can peace happen.

6. Reform our sclerotic national security structure.

Create a credible diplomatic option so that our statecraft choices go beyond shooting, sharply worded demarches, and sanctions. It will make the above possible.

Fix our broken State Department. Create a political warfare capability. Get our intelligence community out of the business of running its own military so it can back to doing what it does best: spying.

Successfully tackling this impossibly long list will require that the government relearn what used to be part of our statecraft muscle memory: applying leverage. Diplomacy is not about negotiations. It is about presenting other countries with choices and then using leverage so that they make the decisions we want.

Success also requires that American foreign policy once again reflects American exceptionalism. Americans value not just where we live but how. That has practical implications. For example, most of our allies reflect our values, and our values are non-negotiable.

Defense of our values requires a muscular internationalism. That does not imply the active use of the military. Ronald Reagan never invaded a country larger than Grenada, and he protected our values just fine. But simply drawing inward like Obama leaves our values and allies vulnerable. Ask Israel.

Conservatives need the Trump administration to succeed at the list I outlined. Voters elected him to fulfill fundamental, conservative goals (which the above are), and they gave the GOP both houses of Congress to help.

The GOP has not had conservative foreign policy since the 1980s. On top of that, throw decades lazy post-Cold War strategic thinking and the fact that Obama did not focus on any of these goals (constructively). Moreover, we have never tried to combat radical Islam, and it has been a threat since 1979. Conservatives have a UUGE task ahead of them. I hope they understand that. (For more from the author of “6 Issues That Should Dominate Trump’s Foreign Policy Agenda” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Limbaugh: Liberals Are Putting Conservatism, Not Just Sen. Sessions, on Trial

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Senate confirmation hearings for Sen. Jeff Sessions’ attorney general nomination show that the liberal establishment learned nothing from the 2016 elections and will continue to wage war on conservatives as if they were enemies of the republic — and humanity.

Democratic attacks on Sessions are not grounded in any concern that he is a racist or has something terrible in his ancient history. They know that Sessions is not a racist and that he is an honorable man. His disqualifying sin, in their eyes, is that he is a conservative — and a Southern one at that, which makes it even easier to demonize him as a bigot.

For if you watched the hearings, you saw that it was not Sessions particularly who was on trial but conservatism and all subscribing to it.

Nor is the rule of law a genuine concern to Democrats, despite their gnashing of teeth over faux fears that Sessions would refuse to enforce certain progressive laws already on the books. They only care about the rule of law when invoking it benefits them politically. In fact, one of the main reasons they oppose Sessions is that he indeed is committed to the rule of law and the impartial administration of justice. They are agenda-oriented above all and willfully trample the rule of law when it interferes with their progressive ends.

When Republicans grill liberal nominees for judicial and executive positions, which is rare, they don’t badger them over their political views. They don’t shame them for the crime of being liberal. They press them on whether they would honor the Constitution and the rule of law and whether they would act within the legal constraints of their positions. But Democratic interrogation of Republican nominees invariably descends into a shaming of the nominee for his political beliefs — or for his votes on measures they disagree with, even when the votes are for measures that are unarguably constitutional.

The liberal establishment in the Democratic Party and in the liberal media (and Hollywood and academia) simply cannot grasp that half the country is conservative. In fact, 11 percent more Americans identify as conservatives than as liberals.

It never occurs to most of these leftist movers and shakers that conservatives have noble and justifiable reasons for their views. They oppose Obamacare not because they have no compassion for the poor and downtrodden but because it is destroying everything in its path — because it raises rates and reduces quality of care and medical choices. They don’t oppose radical, reckless and economically smothering environmental policies because they don’t care about clean air and water, because they place their selfish financial interests above the health and welfare of Americans or because they are science deniers. They reject the presumptuous, dishonest and extreme conclusions of a make-believe, highly politicized scientific consensus, and they know that the left’s proposed draconian measures wouldn’t materially alleviate the problems even if they exist and are man-made as the left speciously contends. They oppose the flooding of our borders with immigrants who aren’t coming legally and the admission of insufficiently vetted potential terrorists not because they are bigoted toward Muslims or uncompassionate for people but because they believe in preserving the American idea and in protecting American citizens. They oppose confiscatory taxes and continued escalations of the national debt not because they are sinister engineers of ever greater income inequality (which liberal policies actually exacerbate) but because these things cripple the nation’s economic engines and reduce prosperity across the board. They are not opponents but champions of voting rights because they demand that people who vote be actually legally entitled to vote. They oppose abortion not because they disrespect and undervalue women but because they value all human life, especially the most innocent. They support a strong military not because they are imperialists and want to impose American will throughout the planet but because they believe American strength is conducive to peace. The same analysis applies to almost any political issue. Conservatives’ views are prudential and morally sound.

But listen to Meryl Streep — both the content of her patronizing remarks and her condescending tone. Listen to Sen. Pat Leahy, Sen. Cory Booker and their fellow Democrats castigating Sessions for his reasonable votes on issues that happen to interfere with the sacred liberal agenda.

Americans — at least half of us — are tired of being maligned by the left as evil, stupid and bigoted because we won’t fall in lockstep with this agenda.

One might think that after eight years of failed liberal policies, Democrats would be more inclined to eat crow than to lecture the rest of America for rejecting their manifestly destructive policy prescriptions. If so, one would be wrong and wholly ignorant of the liberal worldview and mindset.

It’s bad enough that liberals can never accept accountability for their failures, but it is really unbearable to listen to their highhanded, misguided lectures. They lost for a reason, but they’ll never stop fighting and trying to shame the rest of us, so kudos to President-elect Donald Trump for giving it back to them even better than they are dishing it out. How refreshing. Finally! (For more from the author of “Limbaugh: Liberals Are Putting Conservatism, Not Just Sen. Sessions, on Trial” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Don’t Cut off the Power of Forgiveness

/0 Comments/in , /by

Back in 2001, I interviewed Philip Nitschke, an Australian doctor who’s an international advocate for assisted suicide. He was candid during the course of the interview, admitting that the option to “give away” life should ultimately be available to “anyone who wants it, including the depressed, the elderly bereaved, (and) the troubled teen.” He insisted: “If we are to remain consistent and we believe that the individual has the right to dispose of their life, we should not erect artificial barriers in the way of subgroups who don’t meet our criteria.” He wanted to be sure that anyone who desired it had the “knowledge, training or recourse necessary.”

Fifteen years later, Nitschke is waging the same campaign. He just has fewer people to convince now.

Nitschke recently formed the group Exit Action to push through legislation from a “militant pro-euthanasia position,” arguing that “voluntary euthanasia” should never be “a privilege given to the very sick by the medical profession … Exit Action believes that a peaceful death, and access to the best euthanasia drugs, is a right of all competent adults, regardless of sickness or permission from the medical profession.”

As dark as this position is, I’ve always given Nitschke credit for honesty. On so many of the issues that strike at the heart of our humanity, euphemisms and cloaked motives often rule the “debates,” such as they are.

The Inspiration of Stephen McDonald

My friend Ed Mechmann, a writer, marriage and life advocate and former prosecutor, recently pointed me to a blog post by the executive director of the End of Life Liberty Project, Kathryn Tucker. In it, Tucker, a lawyer representing plaintiffs currently suing New York State to legalize assisted suicide, protests against any legislative “burdens and restrictions” on the act.

She lists a litany of such supposedly unnecessary burdens, including a 15-day waiting period, witnesses, written requests to make sure patients aren’t acting rashly, doctor record-keeping, and a mandated second opinion to ensure against misdiagnosis. None of which seem overly burdensome, and instead are just simple protections against, yes, rash decisions and coercion.

I recalled and read all of this as Stephen McDonald, the New York City police officer who was paralyzed after being shot and left for dead 30 years ago in Central Park, was being laid to rest. McDonald later forgave the teenager who shot him, and in speaking about his life post-injury, he was often open about the fact that during some early days, he didn’t want to live. He contemplated suicide, so seriously at one point that his wife called someone who had become a close family friend, then-Cardinal John O’Connor, who spent the day with them both, ministering to them in fatherly love.

That’s what McDonald needed: Support and friends to walk the road with him and his family. He didn’t want to be a burden to his loved ones. And at certain moments, it was hard to see how God was using him for good, for great inspiration.

Since the birth of his son, now a police officer, McDonald’s message had been forgiveness. He would later explain: “I needed healing — badly — and found out that the only way forward was with love. And I learned that one of the most beautiful expressions of love is forgiving. I know that will sound illogical or impossible to some. Others will find it downright ridiculous. But I’m talking as one who has lived through this.”

At a time when there is so much violence and anger, especially on city streets, especially having to do with police, what better message could we hear? And we never would have heard it had McDonald decided to end his life. Maybe from a new perch, he can help us see a way to embrace life in all its challenges and beauty. He sure showed us how here on Earth. (For more from the author of “Don’t Cut off the Power of Forgiveness” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Fences Star Denzel Washington Lives out His Faith in Hollywood

/0 Comments/in , /by

Denzel Washington, one of Hollywood’s finest leading actors, has succeeded in the business by any standard. He’s received three Golden Globe awards, a Tony award and two Academy Awards. But as he recently told T.D. Jakes there are more important things in life than being a movie star.

From his relationship with God and his family, to the life he now wants to lead, Denzel spoke with Jakes about keeping his priorities straight. (See the full interview with Denzel and others from the cast of his new movie Fences below.)

Jakes was curious how Denzel and his wife of 34 years Pauletta have survived so many years in the spotlight. “By the grace of God. Really, I’m not taking credit,” he replied. “And a great wife. A strong, strong, strong (woman) … she has done the heavy lifting. She has been the consistent one. She has given daily religious instruction. She makes breakfast, she took them to school. I was out killing the lion, bringing home the meat, you know, providing.”

Even though the actor has a hectic schedule and is frequently shooting films far from home, he insists his family has always come first. “I don’t want that regret,” he said, when talking about raising his kids. “I don’t care how many Oscars and all that stuff, I don’t want to be that guy. I want to be the one that did the best I can for my children.”

Denzel not only stars in Fences, but directed as well. Mykelti Williamson, best known for his role as Bubba in Forrest Gump, plays Gabriel in the film and has nothing but praise for Denzel as a strong, Godly leader: “Everyday this leader, Denzel, brings the Word. On Broadway we would circle and have a word of prayer, we would cover one another, and he was serious about it, every single day. ‘Alright, we’re about to bring the Word,’ and Denzel was waiting for you and you’d better be on time.”

Denzel added, “When we’d have our circle — cause there’s a young girl in the film too — so the young girl, sometimes we’d let [her] lead. Of course, out of the mouths of babes, you know, so we’d go out there together unified with a purpose.”

It wasn’t just the cast members who prayed with Denzel during the movie shoot. Two neighborhood women who watched the filming from their homes each day became his “prayer warriors,” he said. According to Christian Today, these ladies touched Denzel’s heart. “A woman on the corner, she was watching me. She made her house a quiet place of prayer for me, and I’d go in there when things were getting overwhelming and just take a breath. Sometimes I’d just have a prayer with her.”

He explained how the second woman approached him. “Even before we started shooting I met her and I came and said, ‘Oh thank you for coming out.’ She said, ‘We’ve been watching you for a long time.’ I said ‘Well, pray for me.’ [And then] she said, ‘Denzel, I’ve been praying for you for 35 years, my family and I,’” he said. “‘We’ve been watching, we know how hard it is.’”

As this point in his life, Denzel says he’s content and ready to serve others. “You know, I’m in the service business now. I’m fine. I’ve done well. I don’t need anything else. I don’t need watches and jewelry and all that. So I’m here to serve. I’m here to serve God, I’m here to serve my family, I’m here to serve.”

Denzel Washington directs and acts in the movie Fences, which was released on Christmas Day.

Here’s the full interview on the T.D. Jakes Show:

(For more from the author of “How Fences Star Denzel Washington Lives out His Faith in Hollywood” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Will the ‘Trump Effect’ Trickle down to Christian Conservatives?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Like no one before him, Donald Trump has shaken our nation, and love him or loathe him, he has done what no one else has ever done. On his journey to the presidency, he has broken (and rewritten) the rules, he has defied the establishment, he has challenged the status quo, he has played both the bully and the victim, he has proved the pundits wrong, and he has emerged from every storm stronger than before.

Not only so, but the climate of the nation has changed (some say for better and some say for worse), to the point that what seemed inevitable just three months ago no longer seems so inevitable. Could it be that America is about to make a massive change in direction, a radical course correction?

This, to me, is an important aspect of what some are calling the “Trump effect” (often in pejorative terms; a Google search on January 12 yielded 1,160,000 for “Trump effect” in quotes): The inevitable can be challenged; the status quo can be changed; the bullies can be conquered.

Again, I’m aware that for many, President-elect Trump is the ultimate bully, hardly a model to follow, especially for followers of Jesus, and my goal here is not to call pastors and believers to emulate his tone or his style. Instead, I’m encouraging us to learn from his example that America’s course has not been inexorably set, that the seemingly impossible is very possible, that history is full of surprises, and that now is the time for fresh courage and commitment.

The Nation Turned on a Dime

For several years now, we conservatives have been told that we have lost the culture wars, that we should throw in the towel and concede, that we should consolidate our losses and move on to non-controversial, spiritual issues, that the tide of history is set against us. And those of who refused to go along with this narrative were mocked and ridiculed, told that we represented a dying breed that was about to be replaced by an enlightened generation, mocked as unfortunate relics of a bygone age, ridiculed as an endangered species soon to be obsolete.

Now, the tide of history has shifted suddenly, with the real possibility of a complete reversal in the expected makeup of the Supreme Court (under Hillary) and the equally real possibility of a wholesale repudiation of radical liberalism. And to think that on Election Day, even into early election evening, this was the exact opposite of what was widely expected to be. The direction of the nation literally turned on a dime, and with it, the sense that anything is possible. The very rules of engagement have changed.

Who says that we have to cower before the cultural bullies? Who says that we have to apologize for our convictions? Who says that the mainstream media sets the agenda and establishes the talking points? Who says that the defeat of conservative values is inevitable?

Again, I am not saying that we emulate the style of our president-elect (in terms of the negative aspects of his style) or that we take on the posture of bullies. Instead, I’m urging us to learn from what he has accomplished, to change our way of thinking, and to seize the day and take back the ground that has been pulled from under our feet.

Just three months ago, it appeared that Planned Parenthood would be firmly ensconced and generously funded for a generation or more. Now, the abortion giant stands on the verge of national defunding.

Just three months ago, it appeared that Roe v. Wade would not be overturned in our lifetimes or perhaps even in the lifetimes of our children. Now, talk of its possible reversal is anything but fantasy.

Just three months ago, it appeared that LGBT rights would push religious rights into the closet. Now, an unlikely champion of religious rights has arisen (and oddly enough, he fashions himself a friend of LGBT rights as well).

This is not just the tables turning. This is the floor becoming the ceiling and the ceiling becoming the floor. This is nothing less than upheaval.

Rise Up, Stand Tall!

Of course, we have no way of knowing how President Trump will govern and how far the Republican-led Congress will go in terms of making positive, necessary changes.

But what’s clear is this: Donald Trump, in the past more famous for hedonism than for heroics, has declared war on a sacrosanct, PC world, and it’s high time for others who call themselves overcomers and world changers and who fashion themselves to be countercultural Christians — I’m speaking about the born-again Church of America — to rise up, stand tall, and speak the truth in love.

After all, if a thrice-married, formerly-playboy, billionaire businessman can shake the nation, why can’t we as the Lord’s people — in the power of the Spirit and in the footsteps of Jesus, overcoming evil with good?

Enough with our compromise and cowardice. It’s time for courage and conviction. It’s time we led the way. (For more from the author of “Will the ‘Trump Effect’ Trickle down to Christian Conservatives?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Rex Tillerson’s Moral Indecision

/0 Comments/in , /by

President-elect Trump has nominated a number of outstanding men and women for top foreign policy positions in his administration. Marine Corps Gent. (Ret) James Mattis for Secretary of Defense. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley for U.N. Ambassador. My one-time boss, former Senator Dan Coats, for Director of National Intelligence. Marine Corps Gen. (Ret) John Kelly for Director of Homeland Security. Congressman Mike Pompeo for CIA Director. Great choices, all.

Then there’s Rex Tillerson.

Former head of Exxon-Mobil, Mr. Tillerson has extensive experience in corporate management, international trade, and building a strong professional team. He is reputed to be an effective negotiator and his ability to lead a sprawling bureaucracy is not in question. No doubt he is a patriot and a highly capable individual.

Sadly, he also seems to be completely ill-suited to be Secretary of State. Listening to Mr. Tillerson at his Senate hearing was like hearing an awkward teenager talking to his girlfriend’s father.

The Tillerson Eqivocation

His refusal to acknowledge the moral ugliness of Vladimir Putin was striking. An impassioned and probing Sen. Marco Rubio asked Mr. Tillerson about Putin’s responsibility for the deaths of up to 300,000 Chechens, his murder of political opponents, his military backing of Syrian mass murder Bashir al-Assad (including missile strikes against civilians), and his invasion of the Ukraine to regain Russian control of the Crimea.

Mr. Tillerson’s equivocation was astonishing. Not just in his refusal to call Vladimir Putin a war criminal but in his insistence he needed more information to comment. As a rightly exasperated Sen. Rubio said, the information about Putin’s campaign of death is in the public domain — it is not classified.

It is one thing for a national leader to be temperate, to refuse to surrender to the pressure of the moment, and to maintain an even keel in the face of intense questioning. It is quite another to abandon moral outrage and persist in not calling evil, whether committed by the governments of Russia, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, or anywhere else, what it is. This latter characterized Mr. Tillerson’s responses to Sen. Rubio.

Volatility is not what America needs in the chief representative of her foreign policy. In this, the steady Mr. Tillerson acquitted himself well. But an unwillingness to characterize mass murder and thuggish aggression as the brutality and moral horror they are does not indicate prudence. Rather, it is a disturbing display of weakness.

Tillerson and Religious Persecution

Concerns about Mr. Tillerson’s potential conduct as our chief diplomat extend to the growing pattern of religious persecution in many corners of the world. Reading the just-issued 2017 Open Doors’ World Watch List, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom’s Annual Report, or the State Department’s International Religious Freedom annual report gives one a sobering, arresting sense of the extent of religious persecution, much of it against Christians, throughout the world.

Defending the persecuted should be a cornerstone of American foreign policy, not only because of our nation’s founding conviction that one’s submission to God takes precedence over allegiance to the state, but because standing with those suffering for their religious beliefs is in our national interest.

As Georgetown University’s Dr. Thomas Farr, the first director of the State Department’s Office for International Religious Freedom, said recently, by upholding the right of all people to believe according to their consciences and live out their faiths freely, America fosters “stable self-governance, economic development, and the defeat of religion-based terror. If we act to rediscover those reasons ourselves, and overcome our contemporary skepticism about engaging religious ideas and actors in American diplomacy, we can avert the momentous consequences of rising religious persecution and declining global religious freedom.”

By fighting for the persecuted, America also lets them know they have a friend who cares about their dignity and liberty. This will bear great fruit over time. As many former prisoners of Cold War Communism have testified, understanding that Ronald Reagan and his team were raising their incarceration and treatment at the highest levels of their oppressive governments inspired them to carry on. And this brave allegiance to religious freedom created a loyalty to our country among the former prisoners and their fellow freedom-lovers that remains strong today.

As the eloquent closing comments of Sen. Rubio make, clear, the stakes could not be higher:

We can’t achieve moral clarity with rhetorical ambiguity … For those 1,400 people in jail in China, those dissidents in Cuba, the girls that want to drive and go to school (In Saudi Arabia), they look to the United States; they look to us, often to the Secretary of State … When they see the United States is not prepared to stand up … it demoralizes these people all over the world. And it leads people to conclude this, which is damaging and it hurt us during the Cold War and that is this: America cares about democracy and freedom as along as it is not being violated by someone that they need for something else. That cannot be who we are in the twenty-first century.

Mr. Tillerson has no background in standing against tyrants, brutes, and, yes, criminals like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-Il. At a time of rising international tension, America needs a Secretary of State who has a deft hand as well as a spine of steel. Dealing with dictators, cagey adversaries, and outright enemies is not like negotiating with a potential business partner. It is about standing firmly, sometimes stonily, for America’s national security and vital interests.

Our opponents appreciate resolve, strength, and courage, not sweet reason or a rather pathetic desire to be liked. The Obama foreign policy too often has been typified by a desperate eagerness for other countries to approve of us. The consequences — a newly emergent Russia, an emboldened China, a militaristic North Korea, and an uncertain NATO alliance — pose an increasingly imminent danger to the United States.

Donald Trump appreciates toughness, forthrightness, and candor. In his performance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rex Tillerson showed none of these. (For more from the author of “Rex Tillerson’s Moral Indecision” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Obamacare’s ’20 Million’ Number Is Fake

/0 Comments/in , /by

Liberals are notorious for caring about “groups” of people, but when it gets down to individual persons, not so much. You’re about to see this play out in spades as Democrats cry crocodile tears over the coming repeal of Obamacare.

You hear it over and over again: “This will be catastrophic for the 20 million people who were previously uninsured but now have coverage! You can’t take away their health care!”

First of all, no one is talking about doing that. Any repeal legislation will have a transition period for those who got coverage through Obamacare to move to new plans. And second, they will have more choices and better options. Win. Win.

But liberals would rather focus on quantity, how many millions we’ve given something to, versus quality, what does that “gift” mean for individual people.

The Obama administration claims 20 million more Americans today have health care due to Obamacare. The reality is that when you look at the actual net gains over the past two years since the program was fully implemented, the number is 14 million, and of that, 11.8 million (84 percent) were people given the “gift” of Medicaid.

And new research shows that even fewer people will be left without insurance after the repeal of Obamacare. Numbers are still being crunched, but between statistics released by the Congressional Budget Office and one of the infamous architects of Obamacare, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Jonathan Gruber, it’s estimated that anywhere from 2 to 7 million people now on Medicaid would have qualified for the program even without Obamacare.

That further discredits the administration’s claim of 20 million more Americans having health insurance because of Obamacare.

Multiple studies have also shown that even those who are uninsured often have better outcomes than those with Medicaid. A University of Virginia study found that for eight different surgical procedures, Medicaid patients were more likely to die than privately insured or uninsured patients. They were also more likely to suffer complications.

And it is important to note that this study focused on procedures done from 2003-2007, prior to the geniuses in Washington deciding it was a good idea to put even more people on the already overburdened Medicaid system.

Additionally, despite what proponents of the law promised, there is little evidence to show that the use of emergency rooms, which have a higher level of medical errors, has decreased due to Obamacare.

Then there is this reality: While Obamacare has handed out millions of new Medicaid cards, that does not mean the recipients now have quality health care. In fact, it doesn’t ensure they have health care at all. That’s because increasing numbers of doctors aren’t accepting Medicaid.

As a Louisiana woman told The New York Times, “My Medicaid card is useless for me right now. It’s a useless piece of plastic. I can’t find an orthopedic surgeon or a pain management doctor who will accept Medicaid.”

Keep that in mind every time liberal Democratic senators pull out the Kleenex boxes bemoaning the fact Republicans are the ones trying to take people’s health care away.

Speaking of which, a much underreported fact of Obamacare is how many truly needy and disabled Americans are NOT getting the services they need because of the expansion of Medicaid for able-bodied adults (aka healthy) of prime working age, 19-54.

So while the left talks about all the new people Obamacare is helping, it neglects to mention that over half a million disabled people, from those with developmental disabilities to traumatic brain injuries, are on waiting lists for care.

And many of them are on waiting lists because Obamacare gives states more money to enroll able-bodied adults than it does to take care of disabled children and adults who qualified for Medicaid prior to Obamacare.

If you think that doesn’t have a real-world perverse impact, note this. Since Arkansas expanded its Medicaid program under Obamacare, it’s rolls have grown by 25 percent. During that same time, 79 people on the Medicaid waiting list who suffered from developmental disabilities have died. I would encourage you to read my former Heritage Foundation colleague Chris Jacob’s full piece on this.

Finally, it’s not just those enrolled in Medicaid that are finding fewer health care provider options. For people who now have health plans through the Obamacare exchanges, new Heritage Foundation research shows that this year, in 70 percent of counties across the country, those consumers will have only one or two insurers to choose from.

Add to that the millions of people who lost the doctors and health plans they liked and are now paying higher premiums for less coverage, and you can see that quality health care and anything resembling “choice” has quickly disappeared for an increasing number of Americans due to Obamacare.

So the next time a defender of Obamacare tries to take the moral high ground about the millions of people the law has helped, ask them to define what “help” looks like. (For more from the author of “Why Obamacare’s ’20 Million’ Number Is Fake” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How a Jeff Sessions Justice Department Can Change Course on Crime

/0 Comments/in , /by

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions’ two-day marathon confirmation hearing left Americans with many takeaways—some on his many qualifications for the office of United States attorney general to which President-elect Donald Trump has nominated him, and others on the merit, or lack thereof, of his opposition.

In the weeks leading up to this hearing, opponents in Congress and the media grossly misrepresented Sessions’ record on several issues, including crime and criminal justice.

There were consistent themes throughout the testimonies at Sessions’ hearing that touch upon criminal justice issues and how the next attorney general might approach these matters differently from the current administration. These include support for law enforcement, respect for the rule of law, enforcement of immigrations laws, and punishing bad actors, not innocent third-parties, for white-collar crime.

Support for Law Enforcement

Sessions captured in his opening remarks the reality for law enforcement under President Barack Obama’s leadership:

[I]n the last several years, law enforcement as a whole has been unfairly maligned and blamed for the unacceptable actions of a few bad actors. They believe the political leadership of this country abandoned them.

Sessions showed concern for police deaths and a commitment to reducing them, noting that “last year, while under intense public criticism, the number of police officers killed in the line of duty increased 10 percent” from 2015. He said that “this must not continue.

Sessions’ supportive stance toward police is bolstered by the words of Chuck Canterbury, national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, who called Sessions “a true partner to law enforcement” whose record demonstrates his commitment to “officer safety.”

In particular, Sessions remarks on the importance of community policing, the building of trust between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve, and the need for law enforcement officers to protect all communities could signal a strong approach for addressing increased crime rates in certain cities, including Chicago.

Respect for the Rule of Law

Sessions also testified, as Heritage Foundation scholars have long observed, that “we have eroded respect for law and the whole constitutional structure where Congress makes the laws, not the executive branch.”

The Obama administration consistently took unilateral action to change the law—from refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act or enforce federal drug laws, to enforcing agency guidance documents (e.g. on private employment practices, or the sale of non-Affordable Care Act compliant health policies)—rather than the law as passed by Congress.

In a positive break from the Obama administration, Sessions noted that a guidance document is not an “amendment of the law” and that “department and agency attorneys don’t have the ability to rewrite the law to make it say what they would like it to say.”

Sessions consistently professed reverence for the Constitution and separation of powers, stating that regardless of whether he supported legislation as a senator, once he becomes attorney general he will ensure that the laws as passed by Congress are “properly and fairly enforced.”

As part of his pledge to “never have a political dispute turn into a criminal dispute,” Sessions vowed to recuse himself in any future investigations involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Such clear respect for the rule of law would greatly reduce the partisan culture that has built up within the Justice Department under Obama.

Enforcing Immigration Laws

The topic of immigration also loomed large throughout the hearing, and here Sessions also showed dedication to the separation of powers and the rule of law. Heritage scholars have noted how the Obama administration wrongly claimed “that its authority to set priorities and exercise prosecutorial discretion allowed it to institute an amnesty scheme without congressional action, despite the laws against illegal immigration.”

Sessions was spot on when he stated that “this country has every right to deport persons who are here unlawfully; who violate our criminal laws … and they should indeed be promptly deported.”

“If you continue to go through a cycle of amnesty,” he went on, “you undermine respect for the law and you encourage more illegal immigration into America.” Sessions’ statements indicate that as attorney general, he will leave immigration and deportation policy as a matter for Congress to decide rather than trying to set immigration policy through the back door.

Cracking Down on White-Collar Crime

Sessions’ testimony indicated disagreement with the Obama Justice Department on the issue of white-collar crime, another area where the current Justice Department has occasionally pursued dubious enforcement policies.

Although Obama’s Justice Department promised to hold individual wrongdoers criminally accountable for white-collar crime, it would far more often hold the corporate entity accountable.

Heritage legal scholar Paul Larkin has explained how corporate criminal liability can be problematic. For starters, it is less efficient than tort liability to redress corporate wrongdoing, writes Larkin, and it is “unfair to innocent employees, retirees, and stockholders.” Imposing heavy fines and penalties on the corporate entity, after all, punishes those individuals for someone else’s misconduct.

At Sessions’ confirmation hearing, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii., asked Sessions whether he would continue investigations into white-collar crime and corporate wrongdoing and hold “individual corporate office holders” accountable for violating the law.

Sessions answered that “corporations are subject as an entity to fines and punishment for violating the law, and so are the corporate officers. And sometimes it seems to me … that the corporate officers who caused a problem should be subjected to more severe punishment than stockholders of the company who didn’t know anything about it.”

As Heritage scholars have written elsewhere, Sessions’ view is correct: “Just as ‘a corporation can only commit crimes through flesh-and-blood people,’ a criminal punishment, if it is to serve any special purpose not already accomplished by a civil fine, must inflict pain on one or more corporate directors, officers, or employees” who violated the law.

Sessions also pledged to seek transparency in the department’s distribution of settlement funds—funds the Obama administration occasionally abused in handouts to politically favored third-party organizations.

Despite opposition from some Democratic senators, it seems clear that Sessions will be confirmed. His hearing also made clear that on issues from civil rights to criminal sentencing, as Heritage legal scholar Hans A. von Spakovsky writes, “[e]xpect Jeff Sessions to ensure that the department is once again run on a professional, ethical, objective, and nonpolitical basis—one that respects the Constitution, the rule of law, and the best interests of justice.” (For more from the author of “How a Jeff Sessions Justice Department Can Change Course on Crime” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.