Obama’s Strange Pattern of Concessions to Cuba’s Communists

/0 Comments/in , /by

There seems to be something about Cuba’s military dictators that really fascinates our 44th president. Cuba was the first item President Barack Obama mentioned when he enumerated his foreign policy “achievements” in his farewell address; and with just a week to go, he has rushed anew to make concessions to the communists in Havana.

The concessions this time was to end what has been inelegantly known as “wet-foot, dry-foot.” This was a Clinton era amendment to LBJ’s 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act that allowed Cuban escapees who touched U.S. dry land to stay, but turned back to Havana those caught at sea.

Ending wet-foot, dry-foot doesn’t end the Adjustment Act, but it does renders it moot in most ways. The Act allows Cubans who have been in the U.S. for a year to receive permanent residency, while the Clinton amendment granted those who arrived through rafts or by crossing border a one-year temporary parole to wait for the Act to kick in.

Absent the one-year parole, it is harder for the special concession granted those who escaped from the communist island to kick in.

Wet-foot, dry-foot was ripe for reform. It was replete with perverse incentives. For example, it enticed thousands of Cubans to take to rafts to Central America, undertake a perilous journey through unstable countries, and then be smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Such is the desire to leave Castro’s “Socialist Paradise” that over 46,500 made across the Rio Grande in the last fiscal year, which ended September 30. A smaller number undertook a dangerous voyage across the shark-filled 95-mile Florida isthmus on rafts sometimes even made out mattresses.

But the blanket approach that Obama took, as well as his decision to once again deal in secret with Havana, most probably through his deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes, a Svengali-like figure at the White House, once again disappoints.

The fact of the matter is that the 85-year-old dictator Raul Castro knew more about this policy change just as it was about to be announced that members of Congress or of Obama’s own State Department.

Obama also terminated the Cuban Medical Professional Parole Program, which allowed Cuban doctors sent overseas to apply for U.S. asylum in these third countries. Havana exploits its doctors and nurses, sending them abroad so the communist government can collect convertible currency on their behalf, a practice that has long been deplored.

But Castro hated it, because it gave his doctors a chance at freedom, so Obama obliged him. And that’s the thing about Obama: his apparent desire to please the octogenarian American-hater in Havana is only matched by his obvious disregard for the Cuban people’s legitimate desire for freedom.

He seems to forget that they are trapped inside an authoritarian military dictatorship. In his announcement he once again said that “the future of Cuba should be in the hands of the Cuban people”—as if they lived in Ohio or the south of France.

There doesn’t seem to be any clear way that those persecuted for their political or religious beliefs can find a haven here.

Everything regarding Cuba that Obama announced not just Thursday but for the past two years can be rescinded come this Friday by President Donald Trump—along with much of the Obama legacy.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who poured scorn on Obama with his reaction to the announcement, made that clear by stating:

I had the opportunity to discuss this issue with Vice President-elect [Mike] Pence this evening, and I am heartened by the fact that in a week we will have a new administration committed to discarding the failed Cuba policy of the last two years.

(For more from the author of “Obama’s Strange Pattern of Concessions to Cuba’s Communists” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

See Where Fencing Has yet to Be Built along Mexico Border

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. government has built fencing along roughly one-third of the 1,933-mile southern border with Mexico.

The border state with the longest boundary—Texas, at about 1,241 miles—is covered by only 115 miles of fencing.

Data obtained by The Daily Signal shows there is plenty of space for President-elect Donald Trump to make good on his campaign promise to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

But according to experts, physical barriers are only one component of border security, and Trump could encounter similar challenges to his predecessors in trying to construct a wall—or more likely, additional fencing—across complicated, unpredictable terrain.

170110_border-length-fence_v3

Trump and congressional Republicans say they could use a 2006 law signed by President George W. Bush called the Secure Fence Act that mandated a minimum of 700 miles of “physical barrier” on the southern border without specifying any particular location where fencing must be built.

The law was never fully implemented, and it did not set a deadline for the fencing to be built, meaning Trump could pick up where Bush left off.

The incoming administration just needs money from Congress to do it.

“We’re going to build a wall,” Trump reiterated in his first press conference as president-elect on Wednesday. “I don’t feel like waiting a year or a year and a half. We’re going to start building.”

According to Customs and Border Protection, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, there is currently about 654 miles of fencing along the border. Christiana Coleman, a spokeswoman for Customs and Border Protection, told The Daily Signal 36 miles of that fencing is double-layered and 14 miles have three layers.

Coleman said the fencing consists of roughly 350 miles of single-layer pedestrian fences, most which stand about 18 feet, and 300 miles of low-level vehicle barriers that can be easily bypassed by pedestrians. The fencing is not continuous. The last segment of the fencing was built in 2014, she said.

170110_fencing-levels

The government is obligated by statute to reach the 700-mile floor, meaning it must still build nearly 50 additional miles of fencing at minimum.

A recent report by the Congressional Research Service stated that under the law, the government can build beyond the required 700 miles.

Trump has said that he would not seek to build a wall, or fencing, across the entirety of the nearly 2,000-mile border. He said he envisions the wall covering about half the border because of “natural barriers.”

Trump has estimated the cost of the wall to be from $8 billion to $12 billion. Other estimates have put the cost at $25 billion.

Coleman noted that challenging terrain and other considerations require alternative border security tools, such as “virtual fence” technology using towers, manned and unmanned aircraft, and surveillance sensors.

Building a wall or fence in Texas is especially difficult because U.S. citizens privately own about two-thirds of the border in the state, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

The government would have to purchase land from Texans to build on it.

During his confirmation hearing this week, John F. Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general who is Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Homeland Security, emphasized these constraints, saying that “a physical barrier in and of itself will not do the job,” and added, “it has to be really a layered defense.” (For more from the author of “See Where Fencing Has yet to Be Built along Mexico Border” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The False Narrative Of “Repeal and Replace” Is Preserving Obamacare

/3 Comments/in , /by

What is the GOP plan to replace Obamacare? That is the question vexing all of the Republican beard strokers in Washington these days. But it is the wrong question to ask and it is built upon an erroneous premise. Along with false information about Senate procedures, it is contributing to the reluctance to repeal this disaster.

The real questions that should be on the GOP’s mind are: what is wrong with our health care system, how did Obamacare exacerbate all of its existing vices, and how we can roll back not just the Obama-era anti-market interventions, but reform even some destructive policies that existed prior to Obamacare?

The entire mantra of “repeal and replace” was flawed from day one because it accepted the Democrat premise that Obamacare actually served a semi-useful function, albeit with some glaring flaws, and therefore, must be replaced with something similar. It presupposes a solution without understanding the problem. It’s like the mindless calls for “immigration reform” and “criminal justice reform” without specifying what is wrong to begin with and which problem is being solved with the “reform.”

Health care reform is no different, although much more complex by its very nature.

Much like immigration reform, conservatives should absolutely have a contrasting plan on health care, but not because of Obamacare. Obamacare needs to be repealed, period. Not replaced. Conservatives should have been supporting true free market health care long before Obamacare. Rather than replacing Obamacare in pursuit of similar goals, the plan should be rooted in diametrically opposite premises, guiding principles, and goals.

The root problem with Obamacare

In pursuit of the utopian goal of universal coverage for every last American, liberals have created a living hell of unsustainable crushing costs for everyone. At its core, this is what government has been doing for decades with mandates, regulations, and subsidies. This has created a death spiral of government-induced rising costs, a need for subsidization, and a further self-fulfilling increase in prices in health care and health insurance due to the circuitous cycle of government market distortions. Obamacare merely took all of those liberal health care policies and stepped on the gas pedal, making the price of health care and insurance astronomically high, inducing a need for well over $1 trillion in combined federal and state subsidies and spending on health care overall.

To be clear, while the tax hikes, extra spending, and unconstitutional requirement to purchase insurance or for employers to offer health insurance are onerous, by far the worst elements of Obamacare are the actuarially insolvent insurance coverage regulations. Those regulations, most prominently guaranteed issue (must cover all pre-existing conditions, even if they never had any insurance) and community rating (charge everyone the same unsustainable price), have driven the cost of insurance into a death spiral. The second worst elements are the massive subsidies and the Medicaid expansion, which not only drive up the government’s budget in order to cover the self-inflicted high costs, but indirectly create an even greater inflationary pressure on consumer prices.

“Repeal and Replace” accepts the premise of that root problem

When Republicans refer to “repeal and replace” they really mean bait-and-switch because they are accepting the premise that we need to keep the pre-existing condition coverage mandates that are responsible for unsustainable costs along with refundable tax credits (which are subsidies in all but name only) in order to sustain the higher prices. Accordingly, when they say they are concerned we must not repeal Obamacare unless we have a replacement plan in place, they mean we must not repeal the coverage regulations until we have similar regulations in place. Likewise, they mean we must not repeal the subsidies until we have a pale-pastel version of the subsidies in place.

This entire approach is rooted in ignorance of free markets but also in a broken political barometer. Even though Republicans are in their strongest electoral position since the Civil War precisely because of the crushing Obamacare premiums, they still believe that on net they will somehow lose by repealing what they were asked to repeal. The loss of coverage and unaffordable costs are on Democrats, not Republicans. The number of people who would somehow lose coverage by getting rid of the mandates (remember, there was always guaranteed issue for those who already had some form of insurance beforehand) and would not be eligible for any other program is very small relative to the number of those who would see relief and the benefit to the broader market.

As for the subsidies and Medicaid expansion, everyone already agrees that we would have a two-year transition to give us plenty of time to lower costs both through repeal of the insurance mandates and through further free market reforms. But that decline in prices will never be actualized if Republicans don’t use budget reconciliation to get rid of the insurance regulations, particularly guaranteed issue and community rating. With the wide perception that Republicans repealed Obamacare, they will get blamed from premiums not decreasing as promised because the media and the public will not realize that the insurance regulations remained in place.

Affordable health care: repeal, reform, and restore

The central goal of any conservative health care plan, on the other hand, should be reducing market costs of health care and health insurance, not expanding access or universal coverage as an ends to itself. The essential guiding principle of achieving that goal is eliminating as many of the government regulations and interventions that have driven up the costs of health care. Simultaneously, reform must foster as much opportunity for flexibility, portability, personal responsibility for individuals; innovation, and competition in the market place for health insurance, as well as fixing anti-market forces on the supply side of health care itself. The end result will not be utopia. Rather, it will provide the largest array of choices at the lowest costs for the broadest number of people — the best outcome we can ever aim for.

The primary focus of conservative health care reform should therefore be centered on countermanding those odious price-hiking regulations and interventions, while keeping government spending on health care to as little as politically feasible.

The absolute worst thing for Republicans to do is to maintain the pre-existing condition mandate, in effect, “replacing Obamacare with Obamacare.” This is what makes insurance so costly for everyone.

Instead, Republicans should be focused on reforming the entire system and restoring the free market. Republicans should work on lowering the costs for those who want to purchase insurance on their own, and that will help expand coverage. Also, equal tax treatment for the individual and employment markets, eliminating the anti-trust exemption for insurance, coupled with expanded HSAs and breaking down cross-state insurance barriers, will make insurance portable, affordable, and foster more options and competition. It will further incentivize healthy consumers to take responsibility for their own health insurance, shop wisely, not over utilize and distort pricing, which in itself will reduce the inflationary pressure and create numerous cheaper options for a variety of coverage plans. This will limit the scope of the pre-existing condition problem and shore up more funds to deal with the minimized scope of the problem.

Coupled with numerous supply side fixes, such as tort reform, breaking down onerous FDA regulations on drugs and devices, cutting regulations on telemedicine and scope of practice for health care extenders, updating rules on medical accreditation, allowing doctors to write off the cost of indigent care, and giving hospitals authority to turn away illegal immigrants with non-urgent care will go a long way in reducing the actual cost of health care. This, in turn, will take pressure off the need for third and fourth party payer and help restore insurance to its original purpose.

Rather than a death spiral of self-fulfilling price hikes and bankrupting subsidies, restoring the free market will create a self-fulfilling momentum of price decreases, efficiency, portability, and personal responsibility.

However, each one of these ideas needs to be ironed out and passed through regular order. Unlike Democrats, we don’t believe in throwing in 10 disparate ideas into one bill. In the meantime, Obamacare — with its core regulations — can and must be repealed immediately. If Republicans truly understood health care, they would see that is the only viable option on the table. (For more from the author of “The False Narrative Of “Repeal and Replace” Is Preserving Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

HILARIOUS: Pencil-Neck, Anti-Gun Leftists Want To “Stop the Peaceful Transition of Power” Tweet

/0 Comments/in , /by

This story is really better suited as an SNL short than an actual news article. Oh, and I have a protip for these, errr, activists, below the fold.

#DisruptJ20 organizer Legba Carrefour said Thursday that #DisruptJ20 members were “not in favor of the peaceful transition of power.”

The left-wing protest organization, #DisruptJ20, met Thursday to announce its intentions and plans to obstruct the presidential inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20. The group’s website reads: “We call on all people of good conscience to join in disrupting the ceremonies. If Trump is to be inaugurated at all, let it happen behind closed doors, showing the true face of the security state Trump will preside over.”

“We need to stop the peaceful transition of power,” Carrefour said at a press conference at St. Stephen’s Church in Washington, DC. “We need to stop this kind of fascist government from coming to power.”

Carrefour also rejected the calls of Democratic leaders to calm the anti-Trump protests.

“You saw Democratic luminaries from Obama to Hillary Clinton say, ‘Tamp this down, please stop this. The peaceful transition of power is of the upmost importance to the core element of democracy.’”

Fellow #DisruptJ20 organizer Lacy MacAuley backed up Carrefour, saying: “We absolutely are opposed to the transition” of power to Trump.

My advice?

Bring guns. Bring lots of guns.

Oh wait, you idiots believe that guns shouldn’t exist. Like, you can get in a time machine and, say, un-invent them.

So without guns, I guess the transition to President Trump will indeed be peaceful. Orderly.

And you schmucks will be very, very docile.

Guessing here: the only weapon you have to use on regular Americans is your breath, which probably smells of farts and elderberries — best case. (For more from the author of “HILARIOUS: Pencil-Neck, Anti-Gun Leftists Want To “Stop the Peaceful Transition of Power” Tweet” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Some Constructive Criticism for Jeff Sessions

/0 Comments/in , /by

The confirmation hearing of Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. (C, 78%) earlier this week is the perfect occasion to discuss something we conservatives must be better at.

We almost always set aside the level of self-assessment and introspection necessary to achieve political victory, if the opportunity to rip on progressives distracts us like a cat infatuated with a spool of yarn. Sure, go ahead and have a little fun at their expense every now and then. I’ve been known to indulge myself a time or two, so who am I to judge? But if we’re not careful, we’ll descend into self-deception that amounts to little more than “four legs good, two legs bad” trolling.

Like when Sessions was hazed during his hearings by Code Pink protestors dressed up as members of the Ku Klux Klan, it was right and just to point out the Left’s undying penchant for Trump-electing self-destruction.

Or when MTV News writer Ira Madison III mocked Sessions’ Asian-American grandchildren by calling them “props,” and telling Sessions to “return this Asian baby to the Toys ‘R’ Us you stole her from.” You bet it was a moral imperative to demonstrate how modern-day progressives are Sith-level bigots.

However, when in the midst of defending your guy he wets the bed a bit, it requires a clean-up of your own mess. Otherwise, you will come to learn the hard way that it ain’t no fun when the rabbit’s got the gun.

While there was no end to our hot pursuit of Sessions’ enemies both during and after the confirmation hearing, I saw almost no discussion of merit about his own need to heal thyself on a matter of moral certainty. When confronted during his confirmation hearing on the merits of Roe v. Wade, Sessions went a wee bit wobbly. And that might actually be giving the prospective attorney general — who is also one of the best cabinet appointments Donald Trump has made for conservatives — the benefit of the doubt.

Sessions said that while he believed Roe v. Wade violated the Constitution, he went on to say that “it is the law of the land…and I would respect it and follow it.”

Now, I am on record as saying that Sessions was a strong pick to undo the damage done to our rule of law by the Holder/Lynch cabal. Yet in this instance the best case scenario is he missed a grand opportunity here. At worst, he has forsaken the very rule of law he’s long been known to champion.

For how on earth can the actual law of the land — the Constitution — be violated and yet the violation itself can somehow still be raised to the level of holy writ? To point out the fallacy here is not pedantic nor a distinction without a difference. If the Constitution is indeed the law of the land, then that which violates it by very definition illegal.

As in “forbidden by law or statute” according to the dictionary definition of the term. And since judges neither have the power to make laws or sign statutes into law, their opinions cannot unto themselves have the force of law. Let alone the power to become an unelected and permanent constitutional convention. Able to amend the Constitution on a whim outside the will of the people, whenever the new tolerance which tolerates no dissent demands.

This is the very progressive scam which the Holders and Lynches of the world have foisted upon us, so that they may impose their Leftists fantasies by fiat rather than risk rejection by the voters at the ballot box. In other words, this is anathema to the very rule of law we’re expecting Sessions to protect and defend as attorney general.

Now, maybe Sessions was just rope-a-doping or doing his best Rahab-the-harlot impression. As in smile and wave during the dog and pony show. Or living to fight another day by simply telling the lynch mob what it wants to hear at the time. All the while you’ve already aligned yourself with the righteous side, which will be revealed at the opportune time.

I could be convinced of that on some level. But clearly there must be some middle ground somewhere between taking a bullet to the face, and regurgitating our opponent’s statist talking points on the world’s biggest stage? If there is no clever rhetorical sleight of hand for such an occasion, then that is yet another failure of our movement to prepare our champions for such a time as this.

Besides, hasn’t Trump himself shown there is an audience for throwing out red meat to drive progressives and the media (but I repeat myself) bonkers by destroying their most cherished flawed premises?

Here’s hoping that going forward Attorney General Sessions will prove respecting and following that which violates the Constitution, like he says of Roe v. Wade, doesn’t mean what the Left thinks it means. (For more from the author of “Some Constructive Criticism for Jeff Sessions” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

After Repealing Obamacare, GOP Should Replace with Something Better Than Previous System

/0 Comments/in , /by

Seven years after the tainted, party-line passage of Obamacare, Republicans are in position to repeal it. The GOP has pledged a speedy repeal, but remains divided over what to offer as a replacement.

Obamacare critics who imagine they must put together their own legislative plan numbering hundreds or thousands of pages are mistaken. Instead, they should build a comprehensive policy by passing a series of smaller, more digestible bills to deal with specific problems.

Obamacare was a failure from the start, built on the shameless lie that people could keep their health plans and doctors and that costs would go down. Of course, the entire scheme was based on forcing individuals immediately, and employees with company plans eventually, into new, federally-approved systems.

The government would deny coverage it viewed as inappropriate, mandate benefits patients didn’t want, limit doctor choice for most everyone, and shift costs from the old to the young. Never mind if you were forced to pay more for less, you had to buy government-approved insurance or pay a penalty. To soften the economic blow taxpayers were forced to subsidize patients and providers alike. No surprise, the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies liked Obamacare and contributed millions of dollars to help push it through Congress.

The law relied on expanding Medicaid, a welfare program, putting federal and state budgets simultaneously at risk. Medicaid originally was created to cover the poor and never delivered good care. Now Medicaid covers people who aren’t poor and still doesn’t deliver good care.

Of course, Obamacare didn’t work out as expected — by the administration, that is. Premiums skyrocketed for policies people didn’t like. More sick than healthy people signed up, causing insurance companies big losses. Some insurers dropped out of the market entirely; others came to the federal government with hands extended. Patients found they had fewer choices even as they paid more. And the cycle continued.

The American people don’t like it. Congress should repeal it.

However, simply returning to the previous system isn’t a good solution, since it was flawed. What the GOP should do now is what the Obama administration should have done then: address specific problems with specific reforms. Rather than come up with GOPCare or TrumpCare, Republicans should simply adopt common sense changes which result in better health care.

For instance, Congress should protect our most critical safety net program, Medicaid, by block granting it to the states. The 1996 welfare reform applied this principle to the federal cash assistance program, AFDC, and literally broke the inter-generational cycle of poverty for millions of Americans, Block granting Medicaid would give states the ability to prioritize health care spending on their most vulnerable citizens. Permitting governors to design their own quality, cost-effective medical care delivery systems would benefit needy patients and taxpayers alike.

Insurers should be allowed to sell policies across the nation, making health insurance more competitive. Congress should override anti-competitive state mandates, which raise costs and reduce access.

Health insurance should be portable, which requires changing the tax treatment of health insurance. One possibility would be to shift the tax deduction from employers to employees. There are others, like restoring the availability of Health Savings Accounts.

Everyone agrees that people with preexisting conditions and chronic illnesses need access to affordable care — which is actually affordable. The federal government should promote state high-risk pools as well as private charitable care.

Medicare patients deserve greater choice. Beneficiaries liked the Medicare + Choice program, which Obamacare unfortunately restricted. The needs of seniors are varied; so should be their health coverage options.

These and other reform proposals could be enacted separately. But taken together, they would offer a serious, patient-friendly alternative to what we now have. Congress could begin working on these reforms even before repealing Obamacare.

At the same time, Washington policymakers on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue should coordinate with the states on how the federal government can make it easier for states to improve medical care. As with Medicaid, states should be held accountable while being given more freedom to design policies best tailored to meet their citizens’ needs.

On January 20, eight years of irresponsible, liberal social engineering will come to an end. Republicans need to be prepared to govern. They will fill the White House, dominate Congress, and control most state governments.

It then will be imperative for conservatives to prove that they can propose as well as oppose. Eight years of resistance blocked much that was bad. Now is the time to redress the damage that occurred. Starting with health care.

Republicans don’t have to have all of the answers. But they do have to show that they are committed to finding serious solutions to the many problems before us. It’s time to do that now. (For more from the author of “After Repealing Obamacare, GOP Should Replace with Something Better Than Previous System” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Homophobia Causes STDs, Fat-Shaming Causes Obesity (and Other Urban Myths)

/0 Comments/in , /by

I was recently sent an article, asking for my comments. It was written in 2013 and alleged that in the states where same-sex “marriage” had been opposed in America, there was an increase in STDs among gays, demonstrating that it was homophobia more than homosexual acts that caused STDs. In sum, the author claimed, “Bigotry makes us sick” but “full acceptance … improves our health.” More recently, I was sent an article that claimed that it was fat-shaming that largely contributed to obesity.

Can we utter a collective sigh?

Regarding the first claim, the reality is that the reported increase in STDs was minuscule (especially when compared to the extraordinarily high rates of STD’s among gay men), and the data was quite limited. But even if it were true that where gay “marriage” is discouraged, there is slightly more gay promiscuity, which in turn results in slightly higher rates of STD’s, this would not for a moment negate three important realities.

First, it is sexual promiscuity that causes STDs, not homophobia.

Second, there is more promiscuity among gays than straights.

Third, men who have sex with men (MSM) have the highest rate of STDs, to the point that the CDC reported in 2010 (and beyond), “Gay Men’s HIV Rate 44 Times that of Other Men; Syphilis Rate 46 Times Higher.”

Tragically, these numbers remain extremely high, and even a 2015 CDC report that is quite sympathetic to the gay community states, “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (collectively referred to as MSM) are at increased risk for STDs, including antimicrobial resistant gonorrhea, when compared to women and exclusively heterosexual men.”

The bottom line, then, is simple: Regardless of the presence or absence of alleged homophobia, STDs are transmitted sexually (hence their name), and they remain disproportionately high in the gay community, especially among men.

Could it be that God did not design our bodies for promiscuity or certain homosexual acts? If we want to reduce STDs — among heterosexuals as well as homosexuals — that’s the place where we need to focus.

Regarding causes of obesity, a January 5, 2017 article claims, “Fat shaming — not lack of willpower — is why so many Americans struggle with their weight.”

In short, “Fat shaming — the process of insulting, bullying or stigmatizing a person for their weight — is an American pastime,” and this in turn creates greater anxiety and stress, which in turn leads to more weight gain.

To be sure, there is a lot of pressure on Americans today to have the perfect body, and without a doubt, many of us treat thin people more nicely than fat people (or, at the least, view thin people differently than fat people). And there’s no question that millions of Americans hate being fat and keep trying to lose weight, ending in failure and frustration.

As someone who was overweight (or even obese) much of my life, I have tremendous sympathy for those who struggle, and I abhor the idea of making overweight people, who already feel bad about their condition, feel even worse.

But it is deeply misguided to blame societal fat-shaming for people’s obesity, since the only reason I will be fat, barring a specific medical condition, is if I eat too much food, especially unhealthy food.

The article I cited here claims that there is scientific support for the thesis that “fat shaming can spike stress hormones that can increase weight gain,” and while there may be some truth to this, for every ounce gained because of a spike in stress hormones due to “fat-shaming,” there is surely a pound (or many pounds) gained because of lack of self-control and/or poor eating habits.

What these two articles have in common is a refusal to take full responsibility for our struggles, pointing a finger instead at others — the homophobes and the fat-shamers — rather than saying, “What can I do to correct a serious, health-threatening problem in my life?”

Funnily enough (welcome to my world!), a gay website recently attacked an article of mine titled, “Is It a Sin for a Christian to Be Obese?” It responded with this headline: “Anti-LGBT Radio Host Fat Shames for the Lord to Sell His Diet Book.”

Apparently, I’m not only a homophobe, I’m also a fat-shamer, and even though my article starts off with all kinds of caveats as to why people may be obese, even though I urge us to judge ourselves for being overweight, not judge others, and even though I wrote the article to lift people up not beat them up, I’m still a fat-shamer.

As the gay website states, “Brown does tell readers that God is not condemning them, but goes on to say: ‘I encourage you to confess your bad eating habits as sin, asking the Father for mercy and forgiveness, believing that Jesus paid for this sin as well, and trusting God for grace to overcome. With His help and with a good plan, you can do it!’”

This is fat-shaming?

What makes this all the more ironic is that, for years, critics have said to me, “You Christians are such hypocrites. You preach against homosexuality but you don’t preach against gluttony. And many of you are so fat!”

Of course, from a biblical standpoint, committing a homosexual act is far more serious than having a big bowl of ice cream, but now that my wife and I have written a book encouraging others to healthier living, rather than commending me, these same critics condemn me. Is anyone surprised?

The take-away in all this is simple: While there are many societal factors that contribute to the choices we make, we are ultimately responsible for those choices, and if we don’t like sleeping in the bed we made, we have no business blaming others for it.

Positive change comes when we take full responsibility for our actions, and with God’s help, radical, lasting change is possible for all. (For more from the author of “Homophobia Causes STDs, Fat-Shaming Causes Obesity (and Other Urban Myths)” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is My Southern Plumber a Nazi?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Most of the time, when I report here on secular elitists, the only right tone is outrage. That’s fitting when those who are strong and spoiled kick down at the dogged and decent. But when godless self-righteous hysterics throw a futile hissy fit, then the only Christian thing to do is to sit back and throw peanuts. We all did that in the days after the election, as snowflakes who’ve burrowed into debt like hungry mole rats for B.A.s in cultural studies had a catastrophic meltdown, and were herded into playrooms with coloring books and crayons for group hug sessions and sing-ins.

Now someone has topped that. No crying jag at Oberlin that ends with herb tea and Playdoh can top this blog post from Ned Resnikoff, an allegedly grown up writer at Think Progress and al Jazeera (!), who went online to explain to America his phobia of his plumber:

This afternoon, I had a plumber over to my apartment to fix a clogged drain. He was a perfectly nice guy and a consummate professional. But he was also a middle-aged white man with a southern accent who seemed unperturbed by this week’s news. And while I had him in the apartment, I couldn’t stop thinking about whether he had voted for Trump, whether he knew my last name is Jewish, and how that knowledge might change the interaction we were having inside my own home. I have no real reason to believe he was a Trump supporter or an anti-Semite but in my uncertainty I couldn’t shake the sense of potential danger. I was rattled for some time after he left.

I’m very privileged insofar as this sense of danger is unfamiliar to me. And I know I felt it much less acutely than a lot of other people right now. I’m still a straight, white guy who can phenotypically pass for gentile. Plus my first name is pretty WASP-y.

But today was a reminder that ambiguous social interactions now feel unsafe and unpredictable in a way that never did before. And even if Trump is gone in four years, I don’t expect to ever reclaim that feeling of security. That’s just one more thing you voted for, if you voted for him.

The Cashmere Hair-Shirts of Park Slope, Brooklyn

Really, how can a writer do justice to Resnikoff’s reflections? It’s almost like drowning a perfectly grilled piece of prime rib with heavy Bernaise sauce. But let me at least add a dash of salt and pepper.

It is rare, Ned, to see such twisted, self-torturing scruples outside James Joyce’s portraits of teenage sexual guilt in 1890s Ireland. But it’s not God you fear offending. If I might follow your example and deduce your world view from surface social cues, you’re not worried about Him. You surely don’t fear hell. And yet you police your inmost thoughts like an East German union meeting. Who exactly do you think is listening — Meryl Streep?

Perhaps you sound tortured with guilt because you started off your reflections by reacting with thinly veiled hatred (disguised as fear) for a stranger because of the way he talked, the color of his skin, and what he does for a living. When other people do that, you call that behavior “bigoted.” But here you are indulging it — not just in a private moment, which is natural enough, if far from optimal.

No, you’re sharing it with the world, and you clearly expect to be congratulated for it — in exactly the same way some alt-right hater would post his dyspeptic comments about black teenagers he’d run into down at Walmart, then spend the day reading the comments in his Spider Man pajamas.

And then, Ned, you make it even worse, when you switch gears from simple snobbery and tribalism into a frenzied dance of virtue-signaling, worthy of a worker bee whose wiring tells it how to point the way to the honey. You do not stop to consider whether you might be a bigot for assuming that the man who fixed the sink which you have no idea how to unplug hates you because you are Jewish — since he might have voted for a doggedly pro-Israel candidate with a Jewish daughter and grandchild.

No, instead, you clutch at your pearls and pretend to flagellate yourself because — while the sense of danger you indulged through the plumber’s visit was perfectly valid, of course — there are other groups of people less privileged than yourself, whom you imagine walk through the world in a permanent state of panic. You assume that all blacks, Latinos, Jews, and gays — millions of whom, by the way, did vote for Donald Trump — feel persecuted and terrified. No, Ned, that’s just you and your tiny circle of insufferable, overpaid friends.

What to Expect from Southerners

Now I will admit it: As a native New Yorker, when I hear a southern accent, I have my own set of expectations. I expect that the people I’m dealing with might well be grounded in some sane and functioning culture. I imagine that they’re more likely to believe that there is a God. I figure the odds are higher that they stay in touch with their grandparents, and have a deference for veterans. Whatever their social class or color, I expect that they will display a higher level of civility, and I make sure to offer that back. I try to restrain my New York City impatience with needless chit-chat and seemingly pointless delays, with time spent on pleasantries that humanize transactions. It isn’t always easy.

But I try, Ned, because I realize that not everyone on this earth is exactly the same as I am. And I’m okay with that. You clearly aren’t. You live in an organic vegan soap bubble where everyone, of every color and sexual deviation has exactly the same ideas, and is equally smug about them. You have pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-Muslim (don’t try to do the math here, people) friends of every ethnic background. Whatever their ancestors thought, whatever their skin color or accents, their souls have all been bleached as white as bones. (For more from the author of “Is My Southern Plumber a Nazi?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is the Trump/Russia “Dossier” the Fake News of the Decade?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Fake news or conspiracy theory? Or the most epic troll since Dan Rather was conned into accepting forged documents about George Bush? Or a hilarious amalgam of all three?

All elements of this story are as yet unknown, but what is unfolding has the makings of historical high comedy. Here’s a rundown.

Buzzfeed, a website whose specialty is celebrity tittle-tattle, asinine quizzes such as “Which ‘Pixie Hollow Fairy Are You?“, and get-skinny-quick-by-petting-cats articles, published a document, which they gave the graduated title of dossier, which purported to show how Russia, under the devious and genius scheming of Vladimir Putin, had been grooming and bribing Donald Trump for many years, and blackmailing him by threatening to reveal perverted sexual practices, so that Trump would be induced to enter the US Presidential election, win it by secret dirt supplied by Russian intelligence agents, and so place the once United States of America under the control of a foreign government.

Yes, really.

Even Hollywood would never believe a story like that. But many others did. Like, some allege, virulent Never-Trumper, and legacy Republican political strategist, Rick Wilson, the man who accused Trump supporters (this is, unfortunately, relevant) of being childless single men who masturbate to anime.

That disgusting comment is relevant because after Wilson made it, he became a target of ridicule across the Internet, including at the Wild West site 4Chan, a place were folks delight in trolling, which might be defined as pranking-with-intent. After Buzzfeed revealed their conspiracy theory, and probably because of the conspiracy theory’s reliance on certain perverted sexual acts and because of Wilson’s tie-in with sexual commentary, members on 4chan claimed that they were the authors of the dossier. The claim is that the dossier was fan fiction, and that it was leaked to Wilson who believed it and who then turned it over to the CIA. Wilson denies this. And it isn’t plausible 4chan hoaxed the entire USA intelligence community, but the fracas adds a delightful twist to the story.

A better angle involves Republican Senator John McCain, personal enemy of Trump. McCain was first given a copy of the conspiracy document, which he later handed over to the FBI because, he said, he didn’t “know if it is credible or not.”

How did McCain come into possession of the document in the first place? It is being reported he got it from Christopher Steele, an Ex-British Intelligence Officer, and member of Orbis Intelligence Limited, a company that performs “oppo research,” or opposition research, also known as the art of digging up dirt. Yet if it is true Steele is the author of the conspiracy theory, who paid Steele to create it?

The Wall Street Journal tried tracking down Steele, but they only discovered a colleague who told the paper Steele “would be away for a few days.” The colleague didn’t know where. Perhaps they should search in Phoenix, where Senator McCain has his official residence? Or maybe in a dim bar in Moscow? One wonders if Steele has a 4chan account. Never mind.

Enter CNN. That network presented the conspiracy theory as if it were true, and hinted with all possible strength that the US intelligence community also believed it was true, and that Trump had been briefed by “Intel chiefs” about the damning information Russia had on him.

Only it turns out that Trump was never briefed. Intelligence agencies had the document, which is now known to have been “originally generated as part of opposition research by anti-Trump Republicans and then shopped by Democrats,” but they “planned to show it as an example of disinformation campaigns.”

The tale grows stranger still, because Trump himself claims to have conducted his own “sting operation” to detect leaks from American intelligence agencies, an operation he says was a success, proving somebody was leaking details about his intelligence briefings. This has led to all kinds of rumors about bad feelings between Trump and the intelligence community.

Reacting to CNN and Buzzfeed, Trump said at a news conference Wednesday, “It’s all fake news. It’s all phony stuff. It didn’t happen.” The kicker is that when a CNN reporter tried to ask a question, Trump shot him and CNN down, saying “You are fake news.”

It will be recalled that during the election, CNN had given up any pretence of impartiality, openly touting Clinton and denigrating Trump. The network’s bias soon became so blatant that when a CNN crew was spotted, Trump supporters taunted them with cries of “Clinton News Network,” or worse.

Now that Hillary has faded from the scene, CNN has not given up its visceral hatred of Trump, and has proved willing to broadcast any information that might be damaging to Trump, even when that information has less veracity than an out-of-focus photograph which purports to show Bigfoot riding the Loch Ness Monster.

The story isn’t over. The news on why Steele wrote the document, if he wrote it, and why, including who paid him for it, is bound to generate even more fun. (For more from the author of “Is the Trump/Russia “Dossier” the Fake News of the Decade?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama, Biden Made Aware of Dubious Dossier of Trump Allegations before Leak

/0 Comments/in , /by

Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday that he and President Barack Obama were informed about the unverified allegations about President-elect Donald Trump by intelligence officials.

Biden said in an interview with the Associated Press that neither he nor Obama asked U.S. intelligence agencies to try to corroborate the unverified claims that Russia had obtained compromising sexual and financial allegations about Trump.

“I think it’s something that obviously the agency thinks they have to track down,” Biden said. He added later, “It surprised me in that it made it to the point where the agency, the FBI thought they had to pursue it.”

Biden added that the briefing he and Obama received from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and others, there were “no conclusions drawn” from the leaked dossier, which was produced in August and then released publicly this week by the media. Biden said it was “totally ancillary” to the purpose of the meeting, which was to brief Obama on a report he ordered documenting Russian interference in the U.S. campaign.

“As a matter of fact, the president was like, ‘What does this have anything to do with anything?'” Biden said. He said intelligence leaders responded by saying “Well, we feel obliged to tell you, Mr. President, because you may hear about it. We’re going to tell him,” referring to Trump. (Read more from “Obama, Biden Made Aware of Dubious Dossier of Trump Allegations before Leak” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.