Christians Should Not Surrender the Fight for Our Culture

/0 Comments/in , /by

Whenever I hear Christian leaders talk about the inevitable collapse of the church of America (or elsewhere) I ask myself, “But hasn’t Jesus risen from the dead? Didn’t He ascend to the right hand of the Father? Hasn’t all authority in heaven and earth been given to Him? And aren’t we commanded to go and make disciples in His name and by His authority?”

If so, how then we can speak of any inevitable collapse of the church (or, specifically, of Christian society), regardless of how inevitable that collapse appears to human eyes?

I therefore differ strongly with conservative journalist Rod Dreher who has written, “The culture war that began with the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s has now ended in defeat for Christian conservatives. … Don’t be fooled: the upset presidential victory of Donald Trump has at best given us a bit more time to prepare for the inevitable” (my emphasis; from his new book The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation).

The culture war has hardly “ended” and there is nothing “inevitable” about the collapse of Christian society in America, although, without question, the patient is mortally ill and in need of radical surgery and rehabilitation. But the heart is still beating, there are millions of committed believers throughout the land, prayers are ascending to heaven 24/7 for another great awakening, and it’s actually possible that America’s best days are still ahead, regardless of how bleak things look right now (and without a doubt, they look very, very bleak). Are not all things possible to him or her who believes?

A Backsliding Church

What makes today’s spiritual pessimism all the more galling is that, in my view, the biggest reason for America’s current moral and spiritual decline is the backslidden, unengaged, carnal state of the much of the church. In other words, America is messed up because the church has been messed up, because we who profess faith in Jesus have all too often been superficial in our commitment, as a result of which the world has changed us rather than us changing the world.

When it comes to the mainline denominations, in many instances there has been a wholesale departure from the authority of Scripture and the lordship of Jesus, leading to the abandonment of our moral compass.

When it comes to evangelical Christians, we have often preached a narcissistic, “what’s in it for me” gospel, a self-centered message that bypasses the cross and calls for virtually no sacrifice or service, a message that empowers the sinner rather than transforms the sinner, leading to “Christian” rappers who talk about Jesus in the midst of profanity-laced rants (all while still getting high, going to strip clubs, and partying), and to “Christian” models and actresses who strip down in the most seductive poses, simply because it’s part of their job — and I assure you they can find big churches in America who will welcome them with open arms and celebrate their “liberty” in Jesus. (It’s one thing to welcome the worst of sinners into our midst with open arms and without condemnation; it’s another thing to celebrate carnality and compromise.)

Little wonder that the rest of the public is so confused. After all, the church is supposed to function as the conscience of the nation.

Fulfilling Our Mission in the World

When it comes to social issues like abortion and homosexuality, the vast majority of Christian conservatives in our country have no almost regular engagement with women having abortions and engage in very little compassionate outreach to those who identify as LGBT. As for those of us who do get involved in social issues, we tend to do it politically, looking to the government (especially the Republican Party) to fix things, as if passing a law alone would “fix” the desecration of life or reverse the breakdown of the family.

In that regard, Dreher is quite right in urging us not to put our trust in the political system, and I wholeheartedly affirm his conclusion: “We are going to have to change our lives, and our approach to life, in radical ways. In short, we are going to have to be the church, without compromise, no matter what it costs” (his emphasis).

But being the church means heeding the words of Jesus, who calls us out of the world when it comes to participating in sin but into the world when it comes to fulfilling our mission, which is to shine like lights in dark places, to boldly proclaim the message of redemption, to reach out to hurting and suffering sinners, to make a difference in the communities in which we are planted, and to stand for truth and righteousness “without compromise, no matter what it costs.”

After all, we’re here as the Lord’s ambassadors, declaring the gospel to a dying world, and if we back down and retreat, who will reach this generation with the good news?

But to say, “We’ve failed so far so let’s concede the war” is like a coach saying to his team at halftime, “We hardly played at all in that first half, which is why we’re way behind, so let’s quit now before it gets worse.” To the contrary, he sounds a loud wakeup call, urging his team to play like never before, since the rest of the game is still ahead.

As theologian Douglas Wilson said, “I am against surrendering in any case, but I am really against surrendering before the battle is really joined.”

The solution, then, is not to retreat into some kind of monastic refuge but rather to repent of our sins, to give ourselves afresh to the Lord, and to let our light shine before an onlooking, skeptical, and mocking world. That is the gospel way.

In the words of Jesus, “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:14-16; for further scriptural exhortations, see here).

The Light the World Needs

I’m all for separating ourselves from the pollution of the world as much as possible. At one point, 95 percent of the families in my home congregation homeschooled their children. And for many years of our marriage, Nancy and I chose not to have a TV in our house. I have other friends who live in shared community, while still others have left business and careers to serve and live among the poorest of the poor. At the same time, I am not for withdrawing from our calling to go into the world and touch the lost.

By all means, then, let us live with a sense of holy urgency. After all, we’re here for a moment and then gone, with eternity ahead of us. And let us make a fresh, complete, and uncompromising commitment to our Lord. But let us stand up, not shrink back, raising our voices for the world to hear and living our lives for the world to see. And if America is determined to go to hell, then let it go to hell over our dead bodies.

As Charles H. Spurgeon famously said, “If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our dead bodies. And if they perish, let them perish with our arms wrapped about their knees, imploring them to stay. If Hell must be filled, let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go unwarned and unprayed for.”

To our knees, then, in holistic repentance, and to our feet, in wholehearted obedience. This generation desperately needs the message of new life in Jesus — the message you and I have. Don’t hide it under a basket! (For more from the author of “Christians Should Not Surrender the Fight for Our Culture” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Immigrants Charged in Rape of Girl as Rockville Debates Becoming Sanctuary City

/0 Comments/in , /by

Rockville, Md., the city home to the recent immigrant high school rape scandal, is considering declaring itself a sanctuary city to hide illegals.

Although Rockville police have had a long-standing policy neither to question suspected illegals about their immigration status, or to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, the city is now considering the process of formalizing that informal standard by becoming a sanctuary city.

Rockville City Councilmember Julie Palakovich Carr introduced an ordinance in early March in response to President Donald Trump’s pledge to beat back illegal immigration.

Carr forwarded the ordinance at a hearing March 6 overflowing with local residents, including those in favor of turning Rockville into an official sanctuary city, and those vehemently against.

But the discussion has now become much more complicated, as recently, two immigrants, Henry E. Sanchez from Guatemala, and Jose O. Montano, from El Salvador, were charged Thursday for allegedly raping a 14-year-old girl at Rockville High School. (Read more from “Immigrants Charged in Rape of Girl as Rockville Debates Becoming Sanctuary City” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Over 100 College Campuses to Screen Documentary About Abortion Health Risks

/0 Comments/in , /by

More than 100 college and medical school campuses will host a screening of the award-winning documentary Hush, which investigates the long-term health risks associated with abortion.

Students for Life of America, a pro-life student-led group, organized the screenings to take place on campuses March 23.

Director Punam Kumar Gill, a self-described “pro-choice” advocate, teamed up with “pro-life” Executive Producer Drew Martin and “neutral” Producer Joses Martin to create a nonpolitical “pro-information” documentary about women’s health and specifically the effects of abortion on a woman’s body, including a look at links between abortion and breast cancer, premature birth, and psychological and emotional trauma. National Right to Life News reports that Hush presents “an extraordinary amount of evidence and testimony” including that of post-abortive women. Gill also shared her own loss over a third-trimester miscarriage of a son and its affect on her present and future health.

Opening a Dialogue on What Women Should Know

Students for Life of America president Kristan Hawkins said she hopes the informative documentary will begin a dialogue about what women should know before having an abortion.

“The film is specifically about opening up a healthy conversation on women’s reproductive health and providing correct information that women are entitled to have if they are considering abortion,” said Hawkins. “It’s being screened at colleges and universities because it’s these women who are the largest demographic who may be suffering from complications from abortions and it’s at these educational institutions that thoughtful and fair consideration in the pursuit of truth is still king.”

Producer Joses Martin said that the film will inform everyone and that some findings question claims considered long settled by pro-abortion advocates. “This is not a political film, it’s a women’s health film that is packed with important information about breast cancer, premature birth, miscarriage, pregnancy and abortion, that every audience member will learn something from,” said Martin. “But it does come out with some very controversial findings that refute supposedly conclusive statements made by international health organizations.”

“We see this as an opportunity on campuses for respectful and productive discourse for the sake of women’s health, not a screaming match over abortion,” said Hawkins. “We are hoping that these serious side effects to abortion will be given the attention that they demand by the mainstream media in a true service and honor to women.”

Some of the colleges hosting the screening of the film include Boston College, Brown University, Dartmouth College, Georgetown University, Hillsdale College, Stephen F. Austin State University, Wheaton College and Yale.

(For more from the author of “Over 100 College Campuses to Screen Documentary About Abortion Health Risks” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FBI Director Confirms Investigation of Russia’s Meddling in US Election, Including Any Links to Trump Campaign

/0 Comments/in , /by

For the first time, the director of the FBI publicly revealed Monday that the bureau is conducting a counterintelligence investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the presidential election and whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

“I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts,” FBI Director James Comey said during testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.

“As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.”

Comey said the bureau decided to go against convention and publicize the existence of an ongoing FBI investigation because it considers the Russia probe to be an “unusual circumstance” that “is in the public interest.”

Comey and National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, who also testified before the House committee, said they stand by a report the intelligence community issued in January that concluded with “high confidence” that “Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S presidential election.”

The report said the Russians had deployed computer hackers to undermine the presidential campaign, with the goal of harming Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton while boosting the candidacy of Republican nominee Donald Trump.

“Putin hated Clinton so much that the flip side is he had a clear preference for the person she was running against,” Comey said at Monday’s hearing.

The House and Senate intelligence committees are conducting separate investigations into Russia’s actions during the presidential campaign.

Comey and Rogers confirmed the Russian effort did not succeed in affecting actual vote tallies.

The White House sought to focus on this detail, although Comey and Rogers acknowledged they could not determine whether Russia’s actions had any influence on voters’ decisions.

“Following this testimony it’s clear that nothing has changed,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said during his daily press briefing Monday. “The president is happy that they are pursuing the facts in this.”

Spicer predicted the FBI probe will “vindicate” the Trump team.

He referred to statements by former acting CIA Director Michael Morell and James Clapper, President Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence, that they have seen no evidence of collusion between Trump associates and Russia.

Comey said the FBI investigation into Russia’s actions, and possible ties between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Moscow, began in July—months before Election Day.

The FBI director would not say whether investigators are probing the actions of Trump himself.

Nor would Comey say how long the FBI’s investigation may last.

The New York Times and other media organizations have reported that some of Trump’s associates were in repeated contact with Russian officials and others close to Putin during the presidential campaign.

Comey and Rogers also testified that their respective agencies have “no information” and “no evidence” to support Trump’s claims via Twitter that his predecessor, Obama, ordered surveillance of Trump Tower toward the end of the campaign.

“The answer is the same for the DOJ and all its components,” Comey said, emphasizing that “no one individual” in the U.S., including the president, can direct electronic surveillance without approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). “The department has no information that supports those tweets [by Trump].”

Comey declined to say whether any government officials requested an application for surveillance of Trump or any of his associates with the FISA court.

Republican lawmakers at Monday’s hearing mostly focused their questions on their concerns over a proliferation of government leaks of classified material that have distracted and angered the Trump administration.

Last month, Trump said he had directed the Department of Justice to open a criminal investigation into leaks, to find their source.

Comey on Monday did not confirm the existence of such an investigation. He and Rogers condemned the practice of leaking, noting that such unauthorized disclosures have been more frequent in recent months.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., asked Comey: “Unauthorized dissemination is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison?”

“Yes, as it should be,” Comey said. “It’s a serious, serious crime.”

Gowdy alleged during the hearing that Obama administration officials were behind the leaks, which among other things, included classified intercepts of calls between Michael T. Flynn, Trump’s choice for national security adviser, and Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, weeks before Trump took office. Flynn resigned as national security adviser after the White House determined he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations.

Comey said he is particularly worried about “an unusually active” stream of recent leaks because, he said, the leakers are revealing incomplete intelligence.

“A lot of it is dead wrong,” Comey said. “Often times, [the leaked information] doesn’t come from people who know the secrets, but people who heard about it. That’s why the information is often wrong.”

As Republicans and Democrats on the Intelligence Committee took different approaches to their questioning, Comey and Rogers stressed the serious implications of Russia’s campaign to undermine Western democracies.

The intelligence leaders said they expect Russia to continue to try to meddle in upcoming European elections—including campaigns in France and Germany—and that Moscow could target the U.S. again.

“They’ll be back,” Comey said. “They’ll be back in 2020, they may be back in 2018 [for the midterm elections]. One of the lessons they may draw from this is that they were successful.” (For more from the author of “FBI Director Confirms Investigation of Russia’s Meddling in US Election, Including Any Links to Trump Campaign” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why the ‘Establishment’ Media Is Finding Itself on Shaky Ground

/0 Comments/in , /by

As a member of The Daily Signal team, I took offense to The Washington Post’s recent questioning of our “legitimacy” as a news organization.

The Washington Post began its story stating that, “In an age of partisan media, the lines between ‘partisan’ and ‘media’ can sometimes blur.”

I wonder if the reporter has taken a look at just how partisan some of our country’s media behemoths actually are. Here is a summary of the ownership, lobbying, and political contributions of several of America’s largest media companies.

ABC is owned by the Walt Disney Co., which has spent over $70 million lobbying the federal government since 1998. During the 2016 election cycle, individuals and PACs associated with the company contributed $1.6 million to Democrats and $250,000 to Republicans.

NBC is owned by Comcast Corp. In 2014, Comcast spent $17 million in lobbying and hired 128 lobbyists. When it came to the 2016 election cycle, contributions were almost evenly distributed between the two political parties, with Democrats receiving $3.5 million and Republicans $3.3 million.

However, if you look at the contributions related specifically to NBC properties, the vast majority of contributions were to Democrats. The only outlier was NBC Sports.

CBS is owned by CBS Corp., which spent $4,470,000 in lobbying in 2016.

CNN is owned by Time Warner Inc. In 2016, individuals and PACs related to the company gave 87 percent of contributions to Democrats and 11 percent to Republicans. The only year since 1990 that such contributions didn’t heavily favor Democrats was 1996, when contributions were split 50-50.

And then there is The Washington Post, which is owned by billionaire businessman Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com.

Among his political donations? A reported $2.5 million was given to support the gay marriage referendum in Washington state. He has also been a vocal supporter of the internet sales tax. The Washington Post editorial pages have reflected similar views on both marriage and taxes.

To say that the aforementioned political contributions are nowhere near “balanced” is an understatement. And while you can’t link every dollar to every instance of bias, most Americans have come to the conclusion that the media is less than trustworthy.

According to Gallup, Americans’ confidence in the media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” is at its lowest point in Gallup’s polling history with only 32 percent saying they have “a great deal or fair amount of trust” in the media.

Also of note, a recent Emerson College poll showed voters find the Trump administration “to be more truthful than the news media.” Forty-nine percent of voters considered the administration truthful, but only 39 percent said the same about the news media.

In addition to a lack of trust among American news consumers, technology is playing a role in the changing and broadening media landscape.

According to a 2016 study by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are now more people working in internet/digital publishing (outlets like The Daily Signal) than working at newspapers. And the numbers are pretty stark.

In 1990, there were 458,000 people working in the newspaper industry. Fast forward to 2016, and that number had fallen by 60 percent, to 183,000. On the flip side, the number of people working in internet publishing grew from 30,000 in 1990 to almost 198,000 in 2016.

And, as more and more Americans are going online to get their news (44 percent of U.S. adults now get news on Facebook, according to the Pew Research Center), newspaper circulation continues to decline, and the traditional broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) have fewer eyeballs watching their morning programs and evening news broadcasts—1 million fewer than last year.

Perhaps it’s little wonder that what is known as the “establishment” media is feeling, well, a little less established than it used to. (For more from the author of “Why the ‘Establishment’ Media Is Finding Itself on Shaky Ground” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Administration Sends Strong Signal to Russia by Indicting Hackers

/0 Comments/in , /by

Of all the security threats facing the U.S. today, cyber threats are among the most pernicious. Thankfully, the administration is taking some concrete steps to confront them.

Last week, the Justice Department indicted four individuals on charges relating back to the 2016 hack into Yahoo’s network that compromised at least 500 million user accounts. Of those indicted, two are officers of the Russian Federal Security Service, an agency very similar in function to the United States’ FBI.

According to remarks made by acting Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord, the Russian officers “protected, directed, facilitated, and paid criminal hackers to collect information through computer intrusions in the United States.”

The hackers that worked with the Russian officers have also been indicted on numerous charges. One hacker has been apprehended in Canada, while the other hacker and the two Russian officers are in Russia, where they are safe because the United States does not have an extradition treaty with Russia.

Though these three individuals in Russia cannot be prosecuted in the United States, the indictment charges against them are not useless. The decision by the administration to bring these charges sends a strong message to other nation-states about committing cyberattacks on private companies in the United States.

Private companies such as Yahoo already face a daunting challenge in defending themselves from cyber criminals and hacktivists. But when these cyberattacks come from nation-states, the defenses of a private company are outmatched.

The U.S. government has a responsibility to protect U.S. companies and other domestic computer networks from nation-state hackers, and it has a myriad of tools at its disposal to punish and deter such cyber aggressors.

These tools include the legal charges we saw last week, as well as charges the U.S. brought against five members of the Chinese Liberation Army in 2013 following their cyber espionage against businesses in the United States.

By using legal charges to combat cyber aggression, the United States shows that it is serious about protecting its interests and its companies, and has the evidence to prove other nations are acting maliciously.

Other options to respond to cyber aggression include leveling sanctions against offending nation-states.

A recent example of this came last fall following the hacks on the Democratic National Convention. In response to these hacks, the Obama administration enacted sanctions against five Russian intelligence agencies and three Russian companies, which froze assets and halted transactions and travel between those Russian companies and the United States.

Visa, commercial, and financial restrictions, diplomatic condemnations, actions in international organizations such as the World Trade Organization, and other strategic responses to hacking should all be on the table.

The Trump administration has set a strong precedent by indicting the two Russian Federal Security Service officers and the two hackers that worked with them. But this is just a first step.

Further steps will need to be taken to improve the U.S. deterrence posture against nations who would engage in cyber aggression against the United States. (For more from the author of “Trump Administration Sends Strong Signal to Russia by Indicting Hackers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Neil Gorsuch Draws Praise From Democrats as Confirmation Hearings Open

/0 Comments/in , /by

Judge Neil Gorsuch’s dedication to upholding the rule of law became the focus of the Supreme Court nominee’s first day of Senate confirmation hearings.

“My decisions have never reflected a judgment about the people before me—only my best judgment about the law and facts at issue in each particular case,” Gorsuch said in his prepared statement Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “For the truth is, a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is probably a pretty bad judge, stretching for the policy results he prefers rather than those the law compels.”

President Donald Trump nominated Gorsuch, 49, in January to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died just over 13 months ago. In 2006, the Senate confirmed him by voice vote as a judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Gorsuch appeared to listen intently to the concerns of Democrat and Republican senators alike, even when under attack, smiling during more light-hearted moments. He is scheduled to answer questions beginning Tuesday in hearings expected to last through Thursday.

Those who introduced Gorsuch echoed his commitment to adhering to the rule of law.

“I have no doubt … that Judge Gorsuch has profound respect for an independent judiciary and the vital role it plays as a check on the executive and legislative branches,” said Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat, in introducing his fellow Coloradoan. “I may not always agree with his rulings, but I believe Judge Gorsuch is unquestionably committed to the rule of law.”

Neal Katyal, who also introduced Gorsuch, is a professor of national security law at Georgetown University and former acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama from 2010-2011.

Katyal called Gorsuch a “first-rate” judge who is committed to upholding the rule of law.

“I have seen Judge Gorsuch in action and I have seen him hearing cases and have studied his written opinions,” Katyal said. “This is a first-rate intellect and a fair and decent man. … The judge’s work reflects his dedication to the rule of law.”

Katyal previously had spoken out in support of Gorsuch.

In an op-ed published in The New York Times in January headlined “Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch,” Katyal wrote that he was confident of Gorsuch’s ability to serve as an unbiased judge:

I was an acting solicitor general for President Barack Obama; Judge Gorsuch has strong conservative bona fides and was appointed to the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush. But I have seen him up close and in action, both in court and on the Federal Appellate Rules Committee (where both of us serve); he brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court.

Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., who also introduced Gorsuch, called the nominee for the high court a mainstream judge who adheres to the dictates of the law.

“When you look at his record, his writing, his statements, it’s easy to see why Judge Gorsuch has such overwhelming appeal,” Gardner said. “Judge Gorsuch is not an ideologue,” adding:

He is a mainstream jurist who follows the law as written and doesn’t try to supplant it with his own personal policy preferences. As he said, personal policies or policy preferences have no useful role in judging. Regular and healthy doses of self skepticism, and humility about one’s own abilities and conclusions always do. Judge Gorsuch is not an activist judge but rather a faithful adherent to and ardent defender of our Constitution.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, quoted Gorsuch’s own words in citing the judge’s unbiased nature.

“The judge’s job, our nominee says, is to deliver on the promise that ‘all litigants, rich or poor, mighty or meek, will receive equal protection under the law and due process for their grievances’” Grassley said in a prepared statement.

Senate Democrats voiced their disappointment in opening statements about how Republicans chose not to hold a hearing or vote for Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee last year to the Supreme Court following Scalia’s Feb. 13 death.

“The Judiciary Committee once stood against a court-packing scheme that would have eroded judicial independence,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the senior Democrat on the committee. “That was a proud moment. Now, Republicans on this committee are guilty of their own ‘court un-packing scheme’ … The blockade of Chief Judge Merrick Garland was never grounded in principle or precedent.”

Garland is the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also expressed disappointment about the lack of a hearing and vote for Garland.

“Merrick Garland was widely regarded as a mainstream, moderate nominee,” Feinstein said in her prepared opening statement. “However, President Trump repeatedly promised to appoint someone ‘in the mold of Justice Scalia’ and said that the nomination of Judge Gorsuch illustrates he’s ‘a man of his word.’”

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, reiterated Senate Republicans’ decision last year that an outgoing president should not decide the next Supreme Court nomination.

“Let the American people choose,” Cornyn said, noting also that Gorsuch would become the only Westerner on the high court.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, praised Gorsuch’s record, stating he had personal experience to stand behind his praise.

“In a former life, when I was a practicing attorney, I had the good fortune of appearing before you,” Lee said in a prepared statement. “So, I know from personal experience that you are one of the very best judges in the country. You come to oral argument prepared and you ask probing, fair questions that help you understand the arguments.”

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he is concerned that Gorsuch won’t be independent from Trump.

“We need to know what you will do when you are called upon to stand up to this president,” Durbin said.

Gorsuch himself suggested he would not be beholden to a particular person, party, or ideology:

When I put on the robe, I am also reminded that under our Constitution, it is for this body, the people’s representatives, to make new laws. For the executive to ensure those laws are faithfully enforced. And for neutral and independent judges to apply the law in the people’s disputes. If judges were just secret legislators, declaring not what the law is but what they would like it to be, the very idea of a government by the people and for the people would be at risk.

(For more from the author of “Neil Gorsuch Draws Praise From Democrats as Confirmation Hearings Open” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Author’s Dying Wish Will Rip Your Heart Out

/0 Comments/in , /by

Recently the New York Times ran an essay in their “Modern Love” section with a title that seemed ubiquitous yet clever — at once unassuming yet intriguing. “You May Want to Marry It turned out to be anything but ordinary. The writer, a children’s book author named Amy Krouse Rosenthal, who passed away just Monday of ovarian cancer, but was in hospice when the essay was published, has made hundreds of readers ponder end-of-life scenarios and love lost and found — an unusual yet compelling combination.

A dating ad on a deathbed

Like many great writers, Rosenthal wastes no time in introducing her hook to hungry readers yearning for love. She knows her time on earth is limited — she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in September 2015 — and she wants to introduce the world to her husband, possibly even providing a unique segue to future companionship when she’s gone. The entire essay is composed as a bit of a dating profile: eHarmony meets the New York Times. What results isn’t butterflies but tears.

Still, I have to stick with it, because I’m facing a deadline, in this case, a pressing one. I need to say this (and say it right) while I have a) your attention, and b) a pulse.

I have been married to the most extraordinary man for 26 years. I was planning on at least another 26 together.

The column made readers catch their breath. Responses and similar, shorter essays poured in – about 1,300 according to the New York Times. Her obituary said the column had drawn over four million readers online.

In just a few short anecdotes we learn her husband is handsome, helpful, adventurous, kind and clearly the love of her shortened life. But like all good writers, she shows us this, instead of telling us:

Here is the kind of man Jason is: He showed up at our first pregnancy ultrasound with flowers. This is a man who, because he is always up early, surprises me every Sunday morning by making some kind of oddball smiley face out of items near the coffeepot: a spoon, a mug, a banana.

This is a man who emerges from the minimart or gas station and says, “Give me your palm.” And, voilà, a colorful gumball appears. (He knows I love all the flavors but white.)

After a few more illustrations like this, you can’t help but like Mr. Rosenthal a lot, and Mrs. Rosenthal even more for sharing her favorite things about him with us. Yet the frame of the piece — her impending death — makes this “dating ad” all the more bittersweet, yet illuminating.

The meaning of love and death, intertwined

I never had the pleasure of meeting Rosenthal, but based on her children’s books, her TED talks, and glimpses of videos she made on her web site, she seemed quirky, fun, and hard-working. A wife, mother, and writer who chose to see the brighter side of life and the good in people. (She produced one short film called “The Beckoning of Lovely.”)

Yet here she is, near her death at 51, penning these words to a mass of (presumably) single women looking for love.

If our home could speak, it would add that Jason is uncannily handy. On the subject of food — man, can he cook. After a long day, there is no sweeter joy than seeing him walk in the door, plop a grocery bag down on the counter, and woo me with olives and some yummy cheese he has procured before he gets to work on the evening’s meal.

Here the writer shows far more selflessness than I ever could. Instead of weighing in on the usual questions when faced with knowledge one’s death is imminent due to illness, What did my life mean? What have I contributed? She’s concerned with the emotional well-being and companionship needs of her “incredibly handsome” husband. Rosenthal’s barreling toward death yet there’s no self-pity, no outward flailing, no requiem on how the world has wronged her by cutting time with her husband short when they had just become empty nesters and planned to travel.

Rosenthal says this about her husband, “If you’re looking for a dreamy, let’s-go-for-it travel companion, Jason is your man. He also has an affinity for tiny things: taster spoons, little jars, a mini-sculpture of a couple sitting on a bench, which he presented to me as a reminder of how our family began.” These glimpses of Mr. Rosenthal show us what she deems important: Love and the people she has loved.

I can’t help but read that and contemplate the same things. My husband too knows exactly the kind of coffee I like (lots of flavored creamer, no sugar) and he too, picks up little gifts for the kids when he’s traveling (Nothing for me; he knows I hate trinkets). Deep down we all treasure these things about the people we love: Whether it’s the way a person cocks his head when he’s thinking or the way she says certain words (My daughter can’t say her “r” sound correctly right now, and I hope I never forget this temporary flaw.). We all cherish these types of things about the people we love and who love us but why does it take a woman’s essay penned at the end of her life to help me notice?

Rosenthal isn’t really talking about gumballs, travel, or live music. She’s really encouraging us to appreciate the time with the people we love and to live life fully in the moments we have.

Live like you’re dying

Rosenthal closes with these heart-wrenching words:

I want more time with Jason. I want more time with my children. I want more time sipping martinis at the Green Mill Jazz Club on Thursday nights. But that is not going to happen. I probably have only a few days left being a person on this planet. So why I am doing this?

I am wrapping this up on Valentine’s Day, and the most genuine, non-vase-oriented gift I can hope for is that the right person reads this, finds Jason, and another love story begins.

She concludes the essay — and indeed the entire point if taken literally — with what seems to be a quirky yet selfless gesture to ensure her husband finds a companion following her death. Although on the other hand perhaps it was just a clever, tear-jerking, emotional way of making the rest of us realize we don’t love the people in our lives enough.

Call me millennial or just much more selfish, but her essay forced me to contemplate what we tend to push under the rugs of our minds, even though the entire floorboard of our brains is hammered together with the nails of mortality: Do I love the people in my life, as Rosenthal clearly adores her husband? At my end, with just enough strength and clarity to pen one final essay in the New York Times, could I encapsulate my husband, a good friend, my parents, my children, with a few lines that make that person seem incredible and endearing, a marvel, yet real? Because that’s what the people we love with mortal bodies and immortal souls are: wonderfully-made, God-sewn delights. Yet so often I complain when a friend doesn’t check in on me, when my husband doesn’t respond to a text, or that I’m not immediately forgiven when I’ve wronged someone — or apologized to when I’ve been wronged.

Over five years ago I interviewed a young man, my age, who had been diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor and given less than five years to live. The tumor wrapped inside his brain like a wire mesh rather than a baseball and was likely to effective his ability to communicate as it grew. “How do you feel about your prognosis — that you may not live through this?” I asked. “We all have an expiration date,” he replied firmly. “Some of us just know when it is.” (He’s still alive.)

May we, when whether we know our “expiration” date or not, as one of Rosenthal’s favorite quotes reads, “[R]ealize life while they live it?” (For more from the author of “This Author’s Dying Wish Will Rip Your Heart Out” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Designer Babies and the Chilling Echoes of Eugenics

/0 Comments/in , /by

What if we could use science to eliminate disease, deformity, and mental disabilities? What if the tools of modern technology could make us smarter, stronger, and more beautiful?

What if we could put an end, once and for all, to every mother’s fear that their child might be born with something not quite right?

These are the questions Chinese researchers are trying to answer. They’ve recently announced a breakthrough in using genetic engineering to remove certain defects in human embryos responsible for congenital conditions. This should be good news, right? After all, what is science for, if not to help us live longer, healthier, and more productive lives? The problem is, this kind of thinking has taken hold in America once before, and with disastrous consequences.

In the early 20th century, science was all the rage. Educated men thought they could use their superior knowledge to improve the human race. What a noble endeavor! With knowledge of genetics recently having come into prominence thanks to the works of Charles Darwin, college professors and men of science were eager to apply the findings in a practical way. If traits are passed down from generation to generation, they reasoned, then the species can be improved by choosing only to pass down good traits, while screening out bad ones. This process was known as eugenics, and its proponents included many well-respected people, most notably President Woodrow Wilson, the only president ever to hold a doctoral degree.

But how do you stop people with “undesirable” traits from breeding and passing them on to future generations? Easy, by forced sterilization. In the same way you would neuter a dog to keep it from reproducing, state governments across America passed laws permitting the forced sterilization of people deemed to be insane, feebleminded, deformed, or otherwise posing a menace to the health of the species. This frequently included criminals, as criminality was at the time believed to be an inherited characteristic. All told, 60,000 Americans lost their right to reproduce at the hands of a scientific community that insisted it could improve mankind.

Ultimately, the horrors of the Nazi movement in Germany, which took eugenics to extremes undreamt of by most Americans, soured the national appetite for forced sterilization. By the mid-1970s the practice came to an end even in mental institutions, but the Supreme Court decision finding such sterilization constitutional has never been overturned.

Now, what does this have to do with the Chinese research on embryos? Surely such direct manipulation of the egg will result in more healthy reproduction, not less, and requires no interference with individual freedoms, right? Don’t be so sure.

Imagine a world where, for the right price, you can guarantee that your children won’t have any genetic defects, that they will be tall, strong, resistant to disease, symmetrical, and intelligent, all through a simple medical procedure. Now imagine that not everyone can afford this procedure. What do you think will happen after a couple of generations? The “normal” people, unaltered by genetic modification, will not possibly be able to compete with the supermen and women created by science. They will be inferior in every way, and thus ineligible for the best jobs, unable to keep up in the best schools, and forget about sports or any kind of athletic competition. Social mobility will not be an option, and their children will be doomed to the same fate, a permanent underclass at the mercy of their betters.

How long could such a system persist? How long before the genetically inferior humans become mere leeches dependent on state charity, or else utilized as menial slaves for everyone else, or perhaps be outright forbidden from procreating? It sounds like science fiction, but it’s a simple and logical progression from a system that allows some people to be dramatically improved by genetic engineering while others are left behind.

Aside from these practical concerns, there are any number of moral and ethical problems with tinkering with human life. Modern medicine has indeed done wonders for our way of life, but there is a good reason why many governments have banned human cloning and other such genetic experiments. Blind allegiance to science without stopping to consider broader philosophical questions of humanity, liberty, and justice, can only end badly, as history has taught us on more than one occasion. Engineering works great for building bridges; It’s much less advisable for designing societies. (For more from the author of “Designer Babies and the Chilling Echoes of Eugenics” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Over Our Dead Bodies’: This Ohio Conservative Is Taking on Liberals and Establishment GOP Over Sanctuary Cities

/0 Comments/in , /by

Josh Mandel will stop at nothing to keep the people of Ohio safe from illegal immigrant crime. But that is a little unusual when you consider that immigration issues don’t really fall into his job description.

Mandel is Ohio’s state treasurer and is currently locked in a political fight with liberal politicians over whether or not two of the Buckeye State’s biggest cities should help illegals skirt federal law enforcement. He is coming up against a political machine that is thoroughly bipartisan.

Earlier this year, the mayors of Columbus and Cincinnati announced that they wanted their cities to become sanctuary cities – municipalities that protect illegal immigrants from the repercussions of obfuscating federal immigration law.

Mandel – who is also a candidate for U.S. Senate – wasn’t about to let that happen, knowing the effects that these policies have had on countless families like that of Kate Steinle, who was gunned down in broad daylight by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco. Her killer had been previously shielded from deportation by the city’s sanctuary policy.

A day after Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley announced his sanctuary intentions, Mandel countered he would fight tooth and nail to block the effort (as well as any other such effort in the state).

“You’re seeing the city of Cincinnati, Hamilton County, and the state coming together here, to say over our dead body will Cincinnati become a sanctuary city,” he said at a press conference in late January.

“When a mayor like Mayor Cranley decides to publicly announce that he’s violating federal law, and that he’s going to make a city less safe against radical Islam and the threats we face, we have a responsibility as Americans, as citizens, to oppose this type of act from a mayor, from a politician.”

Josh Mandel, along with a Candice Keller, a Republican state representative from Butler County, introduced a bill that seeks to block sanctuary efforts. Going beyond the typical defund-threat approach, the legislation would impose criminal penalties on mayors of sanctuary cities when their citizens fall victim to criminal alien crime.

Situations like Kate Steinle’s aren’t limited to large cities, either. Last October, CR’s Carly Hoilman spoke with residents of Milford, Mass. – a town of 27,000 people – where multiple families have been torn apart by the after effects of lax immigration policy.

“Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime,” Maureen Maloney, whose son was killed by a criminal alien, told Hoilman. “Our family is permanently separated by his death.”

Mandel says his legislation in Ohio – which would hold culpable officials to a fourth-degree felony charge – is crucial for accountability.

“We want to include as strong a deterrent as possible to ensure that liberal politicians and others in the political establishment are not making their cities sanctuary cities and are not putting their citizens in harm’s way,” he told Conservative Review.

“For me, this issue is first and foremost about safety and security of families throughout the state of Ohio,” he said. “I believe that we have a duty to learn everything we can from horrendous policies like those in San Francisco and make sure that they never come to the heartland.”

Just as much as safety, Mandel says the debate is just as much about “the Constitution and the rule of law.”

“Federal law is pretty clear that local law enforcement has an obligation to report these illegal immigrants to federal immigration authorities,” he said. “And the politicians who think that they’re above the law are putting local cops in a terrible position just to score political points with left-wing activists.”

Right now, allies are sparse for a conservative like Mandel, who says he’s not only squaring off against the usual crowd of liberal, open-borders organizations and activists, and a liberal media, but also a state-level GOP establishment that is hesitant – or even hostile – to rocking that boat, contrary to their campaign promises and rhetoric.

“As usual, a lot of the squishy, moderate Republicans in Ohio are saying one thing to their constituents and doing another thing in Columbus,” Mandel told CR. “When they talk with conservative activists, they say they want to stop sanctuary cities, but when they run into me and other conservative leaders in the halls of the statehouse, they complain that we’re being too conservative.”

The treasurer is, to date, the only state-level official in Ohio to take a public stance on the issue.

But he’s used to leading a lone charge like this, which was the case for his crusade against other initiatives in the state like Medicaid expansion and Common Core — the latter of which he says started with him and two homeschooling moms around a kitchen table.

“We had the political establishment laughing at us and ridiculing us. Then we motivated the grassroots conservatives around the state to start contacting their public officials,” Mandel recalls.

“All of a sudden, the politicians in Columbus changed their tune.”

He hopes this fight will be no different.

“This is a place where I’m very familiar and very comfortable,” he said. “I’m used to taking on people in my own party when it means standing up for conservative principles and standing up for the Constitution.” (For more from the author of “‘Over Our Dead Bodies’: This Ohio Conservative Is Taking on Liberals and Establishment GOP Over Sanctuary Cities” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.