Lie, Lie, Lie: Ryan and Co. Caught in Twisted Pretzel of Lies to Preserve Obamacare

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The lying being employed to preserve Obamacare has likely surpassed the degree of intensity of the Gang of Eight immigration bill when Republicans were trying to convince conservatives the bill was the opposite of what it actually did.

At the time, they lied about the nature of the bill, its outcomes, its cause and effect, and the entire premise behind it. They used conservative talking points to describe something antithetical to what was actually in the bill while at the same time telling us lies about the legislative process. Allies of GOP leadership also managed to get liberal groups to fund ads in conservative districts selling amnesty as border enforcement.

All of those elements are playing out this week — except the stakes and magnitude of the lying is worse.

They are repealing Obamacare and not repealing it at the same time!

Out of one side of their mouths varying establishment figures say #RINOcare is full repeal. When we demonstrate that it’s not, they blame the Senate parliamentarian and congressional process. They say we cannot repeal the price-hiking, competition-destroying regulations that form the core of Obamacare because the parliamentarian won’t allow those provisions through the budget reconciliation process.

A logical observer of this subterfuge would ask the following question:

“Wait, so you mean you are now changing your argument from “yes, we are repealing Obamacare” to “no, we are not repealing Obamacare because the parliamentarian ate our homework”?

Privately, other leadership figures will tell rank-and-file members that we can’t repeal the regulations because of political considerations. They are too scared to explain how the pre-existing condition element of Obamacare is the core element driving up prices and inducing a death spiral of insolvency.

Which begs the next logical set of questions:

What is the official story-line of Republicans promoting this fake repeal bill? Do they not want to repeal it? Can they not repeal it because of process constraints? Or is this bill itself actually full repeal of Obamacare, as they keep advertising to the public?

All three choices, evidently!

The parliamentarian excuse is a bald faced lie and here’s the proof

As for the question of the parliamentarian and the budget process, we have already thoroughly debunked the myth that the regulations cannot be repealed through reconciliation. Based on precedent, CBO’s analysis, the courts, and the power of the vice president (presiding officer of the Senate) to overrule the parliamentarian, the regulations can all be repealed in a one-sentence bill. Republican leaders, who are owned by the Obamacare-loving Chamber of Commerce, just don’t want to do it. There are cants and there are wonts. This is a clear example of wont.

But here’s further proof they are lying to us about the constraints of the budget reconciliation process. The fine print of their own bill self-incriminates their contention that regulations cannot be repealed through the budget reconciliation. I noted before that the Congressional Research Service lists 24 regulations in Obamacare. The heart and soul of what drives up the costs are the core regulations of guaranteed issue, community rating, and the requirement to cover a panoply of wasteful costs. Those elements are what has made Obamacare insolvent because they force insurers to cover everyone under every circumstance for every disease at the same price of the general public. It takes the concept of insurance out of insurance. Hence, the crushing costs for everyone and the lack of choice and competition.

However, there are a bunch of other regulations that have a much smaller impact on the marketplace. Two of the 24 regulations are actually repealed or modified in this GOP bill. They are called “actuarial value” and age-rating restrictions. They will only have a negligible effect, especially because actuarial value is not repealed until 2020, long after the death spiral will occur.

It’s not important to get into the details of what these regulations do, but the inclusion of them in the GOP bill demonstrates incontrovertibly that when Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. (F, 51%) wants to stick regulation repeal into budget reconciliation he can. There are also several other extraneous provisions in the bill that don’t have a positive budgetary effect, yet Republicans don’t seem to worry about the parliamentarian striking them out of the process.

The bottom line is that the parliamentarian has no right to subject every individual provision of the bill to the “Byrd Rule” (requirement to have a budget effect) instead of looking at the entire bill in totality as a net budget cut. Ryan is simply lying when he says we can’t repeal guaranteed issue and community rating, which have a much greater budgetary impact than almost anything else he does include in the bill.

The lie about a second and third effort at repeal

Paul Ryan and administration officials also promise us that there will be future repeal efforts.

First, let’s just note for the record that this in itself self-incriminates their other lies; namely that the current bill is full repeal and will bring down prices and/or that full repeal is not politically feasible. Be it as it may, they are trapped in another double lie. If it is their contention that the parliamentarian has judicial review over the majority party and the future of our health care, then we never have the ability to repeal the worst elements of Obamacare. Nothing will change in the future. They should admit this point publicly and stop lying to the voters.

Under the GOP establishment’s assumption that budget reconciliation constrains them from repealing the regulations and enacting conservative reforms, we will have this same problem in “round two” and “round three.” The only other options for passing any conservative bill would be to eliminate the filibuster or enforce the “two speech rule,” which they have expressed no desire to do. What we can or can’t do on round one holds true for every round.

There are many more lies to debunk and will have to be addressed in future articles. For example, Ryan said that the regulations can be repealed administratively by HHS Secretary Tom Price. Aside from the fact that Republicans have demonstrated they don’t want to repeal them, this is simply not true. [read more here on that point ]

What is really playing out is reminiscent of ancient Persia whereby “a writ that is written in the name of the king and sealed with the king’s ring cannot be rescinded” [Esther, 8:8]. No Democrat policy — no matter how destructive and illogical — can ever be repealed because of the lies promulgated by the political class. They lie to us about the nature of the policies and they make up excuses to avoid repealing those policies in order to cover their original lies. Sadly, while Democrats lie in pursuit of their goals and aspirations, Republicans lie in pursuit of the other side’s ideals. (For more from the author of “Lie, Lie, Lie: Ryan and Co. Caught in Twisted Pretzel of Lies to Preserve Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Are We Witnessing the Weirdest Moment in Economic History?

/0 Comments/in , /by

It is an unfortunate reality that most people tend to be oblivious to massive sea changes in geopolitics and economics. You would think that these events would catch the immediate attention of everyone as they happen, but usually it is not until they realize that the microcosm of their personal lives is subject to the consequences of the macrocosm that they wake up and take notice.

There are, however, ways to train yourself to pick up on signals within the news cycle and within political and financial rhetoric; signals that indicate a great shift is perhaps on the way. Sometimes these initial signs are subtle, sometimes they are as subtle as a feminist slut-walk. I would point out that over the next few months there are dangerous correlations so numerous and blatant in the economic sphere that I would almost rather watch a marching gaggle of frumpy feminists wearing nothing but electrical tape than bear witness to the mayhem that is about to strike the unwitting public.

What am I talking about? Well, let’s go through the list…

Federal Reserve Meeting March 14-15th

As my readers know well, I have been warning since before the election that the Fed would use a Trump presidency as an opportunity to pull the plug on near-zero interest rates and remove a primary pillar supporting stock markets — stock buybacks made possible by free overnight loans to numerous banks and corporations. Without QE and low interest rates the equities bubble will inevitably implode.

Corporate earnings certainly aren’t holding up stocks, neither is GDP or consumer spending. The Fed is the only determining factor of the ongoing bull market. Anyone who claims otherwise is probably a mainstream analyst or overzealous day trader with a vested interest in keeping the illusion going.

It is not surprising to me at all that the “rate hike odds” for March have been increased by mainstream analysts to 90% in the span of a week. I don’t know why anyone uses these arbitrary odds as an indicator of anything. I’ve been receiving emails all month asking me if I still believe the Fed will hike rates while the odds are “so low.” Look, the Fed does not make decisions at these meetings. They make decisions months in advance and the meetings are window dressing.

Too many people operate under the delusion that the central bank wants to continue propping up stocks, which is why they cannot grasp why the Fed would raise rates. In reality, the stage has been perfectly set to allow the bubble to implode. When the elites have a perfect scapegoat, they use it, and conservative movements represent that perfect scapegoat today.

The important thing to remember, though, is the timing of this particular meeting…

U.S. Debt-Ceiling Suspension Ends March 15th

So, in case you weren’t tracking the economic situation two years ago, the U.S. government almost went bust (in a sense) in 2015. The debt ceiling sets limits on how much the government can borrow to fund itself, and that limit was hit hard under the Obama administration after he managed to nearly double the national debt during his tenure. Congress passed legislation to allow borrowing to continue until March 2017, and of course, much of that capital was “borrowed” from the Federal Reserve, which, of course, creates it out of thin air. With the return of the debt ceiling, the question is — will Congress be able to extend and delay again? With Trump running on a platform of fiscal responsibility, CAN they extend again? Do they even want to, or is this an engineered crisis event?

Once again, the timing of all this is a little odd. The Fed is raising rates into the first year of the Trump presidency leaving equities increasingly open to destabilization. In addition, the government might not be able to continue borrowing from them, or there will be a renewed extension but the costs of borrowing will run much higher. In either case, this month seems to pronounce the beginning of something; a considerable move away from the standard operating procedures that the elites have been using for the past several years. With such changes come consequences, always.

Formal Initiation Of Brexit On March 15th

The skeptics have been telling me for months that even though I was right about the Brexit vote victory the elites “would never allow” the British to leave the EU. Well, it doesn’t look that way to me so far. Theresa May plans to formally notify the EU of British exit on March 15th triggering two years of negotiations which will undoubtedly send economic shock waves throughout the globe on a regular basis.

Of course the Brexit will move forward! Why not? Globalists need a continuing atmosphere of crisis to distract the masses from their great global reset, and they need multiple scapegoats for the economic disaster that their reset will cause. Enter conservative movements in Europe; once again the perfect target to pin a crisis on.

French Elections Start April 23rd, End May 7th

Yet another election in which the EU hangs in the balance. Recent polls indicate that Marine Le Pen, the designated “populist” candidate, is falling behind. I have to ask, though, have we not learned our lesson yet on the meaninglessness of political polls? I think most of us have.

I believe Le Pen will be one of the final two candidates to move on to the election in May, and though I am not as certain as I was on Brexit and Trump, I am going to go ahead and predict a Le Pen win. If there is any sizable terrorist event in the next couple of months in the EU, or expanded Muslim riots, she is a guaranteed win. This brings up the very real prospect of a “Frexit” in the near future, and analysts should expect that a Le Pen win will be met with some panic in the financial world.

Potential Italian Election Move On April 30th

The Italian political process is a little confusing to me, but what I can tell you is that this spring or early summer you will probably be hearing a lot more about it. Former Italian prime minister and current Italian Democratic Party leader Matteo Renzi is set to decide on a the date for a leadership vote, which may come as early as April 30th. The outcome of this vote will likely decide how soon the next official Italian election will take place.

The election is required to be held before May 2018, but there is increasing pressure to hold elections in 2017, perhaps even this coming summer. I would not be at all shocked to see a surprise announcement of an early Italian election after the leadership vote is held.

Why should anyone care? The consensus is that Renzi’s party will be overrun by anti-EU factions and that this may result in a kind of “Italiexit.” The outcome of Italy’s series of votes and political restructuring will have wide reaching effects on the psychology of the markets for many months to come.

German Federal Election Held September 24th

Yes, even Germany is quaking this year in the wake of a potential “populist” tsunami. Angela Merkel is exceedingly unloved by her own people lately as her approval ratings collapse. Once-silent sovereignty champions in the country are becoming more and more vocal about Merkel’s rather insane open immigration policies which were the key element that drew millions of Muslims into the EU. It was the German government’s promise of endless entitlement programs that created the incentive for the mass migration in the first place, and now, finally, the German people are fed up with the complete lack of cultural assimilation and what many see as the destruction of Western values.

I do not think that Germany will abandon the supranational concept of the EU regardless of the outcome of the election, but the removal of Merkel would signal a less agreeable Germany, which would exacerbate the already tottering European Union. Meaning more economic uncertainty in 2017.

If You Thought 2016 Was Weird…

If you thought 2016 was weird, I suggest you get comfortable with the surreal because it is not going away anytime soon. 2017 is a veritable treasure trove of falling elevators, and I haven’t even covered half of the issues facing the economy this year. But what about the macro-analysis?

To summarize, it seems to me that many of these events, stacked so closely together, are not coincidental in their timing. As I have noted in articles such as “The Economic End Game Explained,” globalists have been openly planning for decades to set in motion a vast financial overhaul and the launch of a single global economy and currency (the seeds being planted starting in 2018). If this is still their timeline, then it would follow that they would need a series of fiscal earthquakes designed to shake up the “old world order” to make way for a “new world order.”

Perhaps each of these events will result in a “stable” outcome and there is nothing to be concerned about. That said, I don’t believe in chance. Most geopolitical outcomes are influenced by internationalist players, which makes the outcomes of these events predictable. This is what made the Brexit predictable, and it is what made Trump’s victory predictable. Everything about the confluence of political and economic events in 2017 suggests to me a festering crisis atmosphere.

As I have always said, economic collapse is a process, not a singular moment in time. This process lulls the masses into complacency. You can show them warning sign after warning sign, but most of them have no concept of what a collapse is. They are waiting for a cinematic moment of revelation, a financial explosion, when really, the whole disaster is happening in slow motion right under their noses. Economies do not explode, they drown as the water rises one inch at a time. (For more from the author of “Are We Witnessing the Weirdest Moment in Economic History?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Horrendous Visa Program Forcing Tech Workers to ‘Dig Their Own Graves’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Leo Perrero still remembers the humiliation of losing his job.

“All of you in this room will be losing your jobs in the next 90 days,” he was told, later recalling the experience before Congress.

“Later that same day,” he added, “I remember very clearly going to the local church pumpkin sale and having to tell the kids that we could not buy any because my job was going over to a foreign worker.”

Disney replaced Perrero using a little-known and oft overlooked provision of immigration law that allows big tech companies to replace their employees with foreign workers under extremely questionable circumstances.

In an upcoming episode of “Michelle Malkin Investigates” — “H-1B Hell: The Sellout of America’s Best and Brightest Workers” — Malkin delves into how the H-1B worker visa program has been putting people like Leo Perrero and countless others out of work since 1990.

On location at UC San Francisco, where 79 IT workers recently lost their jobs to an outsourcing firm and user of H-1B visa workers, Malkin spoke to some of tech workers laid off by the university.

“I was shocked Monday when I showed up at work and my boss was standing there with a letter,” said Greg Lennon, one such former UCSF employee.

“Every single one of my evaluations for 15 years said ‘meets and exceeds expectations,’ and that was from three different managers,” Lennon said. “I was working between 60 and 70 hours per week.”

Even worse, the employees were told to “dig their own graves” as it were, being forced to train their foreign replacements in exchange for their severance pay.

“It’s kind of insulting,” said one of Lennon’s co-workers – a married father of two – when asked about the situation. “[It’s] a slap in the face.”

Such experiences are, unfortunately, not uncommon. Over the past few years alone, similar stories have emerged elsewhere in the tech sector, most notably from Disney and Microsoft.

“The H-1B program essentially handed the keys to our immigration system to corporations with a lot of influence and with ulterior motives,” Conservative Review Senior Editor Daniel Horowitz tells MMI. “Their motive is to bring in as many cheap workers as possible, which is understandable; you always want to cut costs.” But the unintended consequences are far-reaching, he added.

“Why should IBM or Disney be deciding our future voting population?” Horowitz asks. “That needs to be decided by our general immigration system, not those looking to save $15,000 or $20,000 on their labor costs.” (For more from the author of “The Horrendous Visa Program Forcing Tech Workers to ‘Dig Their Own Graves'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

GOP Should Look up the Definition of ‘Obamacare’ Before Claiming to Repeal It

/0 Comments/in , /by

The reason why Republicans are able to perpetuate the lie that they are repealing Obamacare is because they have obfuscated the definition of Obamacare.

The regulations are everything

At its core, Obamacare is the imposition of actuarially insolvent regulations, which spike the cost of premiums and chase out choice, competition, and innovation (which further raises costs). This, in turn, engenders a need for mass subsidization, which in itself is not only costly to the government (taxpayers), but further distorts the insurance market.

That is because insurers now negotiate with government within the confines of regulations and subsidies to box out competition rather than working directly with market demand of consumers, unencumbered by price-hiking regulations and artificially inflated demand from subsidies.
This is also why the customer service of insurance companies has been horrible; there is no ability or incentive to work with consumers. Either way they are regulated. Either way they get subsidized.

That is the definition of Obamacare’s most destructive element. That is the part of Obamacare that is not repealed at all before 2020 and only tweaked after 2020 in the GOP leadership plan. Prices will not come down. Worse, the subsidies — which will be geared more toward middle-income and upper-middle income families — will create an even greater market distortion than Obamacare’s subsidies primarily for lower-income groups already have.

Thus, when Republicans say they are repealing Obamacare, but then proceed to talk about the repeal of the individual and employer mandates and tax increases, they are lying to you. The mandates and the taxes are not Obamacare — they are the funding mechanisms for Obamacare. By repealing the mandates and taxes without repealing the regulations, exchanges, and subsidies will cause adverse selection whereby younger, healthier individuals will leave the system.

Republicans will own a more precipitous Obamacare death spiral than the existing turmoil under current law. Ironically, it will be blamed on the “repeal and replace” bill, even though it is in fact the non-repealed version (regulations and subsidies) exacerbated by the repeal of the funding mechanism (mandates and taxes) that will cause the system to collapse.

The result will be either single-payer or a massive insurance bailout, even before the “reforms” are put in place in 2020. The number of people flooding the Medicaid expansion before the partial freeze in 2020 will further blow a hole in the system, and at a higher price.

Taxes and mandates are bad, but are not the source of the problem

Don’t get me wrong — I hate tax hikes and mandates as much as anyone else. But they are not the source of the destruction in the insurance market. In fact, the individual and employer mandates are necessary once you agree to the premise of regulated and subsidized health care (a doctrine enshrined by this RINOcare legislation). Otherwise, there aren’t enough people paying into the system to keep the Ponzi scheme afloat for even a few years.

Tax hikes are always bad for economic growth, but they were not responsible for the skyrocketing premiums, lack of choice and competition, limited physician networks, and horrible customer service. Most of the tax revenue comes from a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income and an increase in payroll taxes on upper-income earners.

Those are onerous and anti-growth taxes, but are not the source of the health care problems. The few tax hikes directly levied on health insurance are either small in scope, have only been implemented recently, or, in the case of the “Cadillac” tax, has been indefinitely delayed.

The magical reason the insurance market, which was never fully free market, suddenly became like Venezuela after Obamacare was passed is not due to the tax increases.

It’s the regulations, stupid.

The Congressional Research Service lists 24 Obamacare regulations that are almost solely responsible for the high prices and lack of competition. Refusal to repeal the regulations, along with the self-fulfilling subsidies, is the full retention of Obamacare. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying to you.

Not only are the regulations the culprit of higher premiums, they are responsible for an estimated $19 billion in lost wages, 10,000-plus fewer business establishments, nearly 300,000 lost jobs, and $51 billion in costs and more than 172 million hours of paperwork compliance, according to the American Action Forum.

The only way to bring down costs is to repeal the regulations. As Charles Blahous, a former Social Security trustee, pointed out, the CBO has already hinted to the fact that repealing the regulations would not only dramatically reduce prices, but also cover many more people than what the GOP “American Health Care Act” plans to do.

Simply put — you can’t offer lower prices and offer people better coverage without repealing Obamacare. (For more from the author of “GOP Should Look up the Definition of ‘Obamacare’ Before Claiming to Repeal It” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

With Colleges Turning Into Indoctrination Camps, What Can Christian Parents Do?

/0 Comments/in , /by

As we saw in Part One and Part Two of this series, free speech and liberal arts education are dying or dead at most American colleges, while expressions of Christian faith are increasingly penalized. What is a student or parent to do? The options are narrowing, year by year.

Ideally, we’d want to see those strong believers who can make the grade walking the storied lawns of Harvard, Yale, and other elite institutions, honing their arguments with top-notch secular thinkers, gaining five-star credentials, making connections, and witnessing to their faith. But few of those things are possible anymore at most such universities, where matters grow worse year by year. Such schools are clutched tight in the whitened knuckles of tenured radicals, with ever-expanding “speech codes” that repress free expression of thought, and curricula driven not by reason or love of culture, but ideological fervor.

The Ivies Don’t Want You

When schools like Middlebury College can let violent mobs assault professors and silence free speech, while Yale lets angry snowflakes drive celebrated faculty members to give up tenure and quit, we can no longer pretend that these schools are really elite. They might have famous professors, massive endowments, and kids with high SATs, but they are becoming little more than leftist seminaries, which preach a new and puritanical creed that’s not just neutral but hostile to Christianity and Western civilization. Each year, they churn far too many lazy, sloppy thinkers who react to ideas that offend them by starting riots, throwing tantrums, having meltdowns, or claiming that they are victims. Sooner or later, employers will catch on and figure out that it’s time to stop hiring Yalies — except those with the courage (which these days borders on recklessness) to swim against the tide and speak their minds.

Middlebrow Schools Won’t Protect You

You might think that an ordinary state university, or long-standing Catholic college, would be a friendlier venue for conservative, Christian students. But that’s no longer broadly true, as the teachers and administrators at schools eager to polish their reputations ape what is taught and practiced at elite campuses. It wasn’t at Harvard that a journalism professor called on “muscle” to grab the camera of a student journalist who was documenting a leftist riot. It was at the University of Missouri. It wasn’t at Oberlin that a Christian student was silenced by her professor for questioning same-sex marriage — and another professor who spoke out on her behalf was fired. It was at putatively Catholic Marquette University.

Faithful Schools Under Fire

Even colleges with a traditional evangelical Christian orientation are under heavy pressure from theological progressives to compromise biblical teaching and practice on crucial moral issues. It doesn’t help when the regional accrediting authorities threaten to yank the school’s right to grant certified degrees or dispense federal student loans, as happened to Gordon College in Massachusetts. Even when such schools (for now) dodge Big Brother’s bullet, such controversies give ammo to progressives on campus and in the faculty to push such colleges in an ever more secular direction.

Intentionally Christian Colleges

There are a few smaller, more recently founded colleges that we might call “intentionally Christian,” which push back against the overwhelming pressure of trends within academia, to teach traditional liberal arts and sound theology. For highly motivated, intellectually talented students with an interest in academic pursuits, journalism, or the arts, choices such as The King’s College in New York City or Hillsdale College in Michigan make sense. This is where many of the believers who once might have braved the Ivy League will now end up instead, so there’s some hope that they will produce the new cultural leaders which the church desperately needs.

What About the Rest of Us?

But there aren’t anywhere near enough spots at such colleges to educate millions of Christians who simply want a basic college education so they can get started with their lives. Nor is a traditional liberal arts education meant for everyone. Millions of young people want to get training in business, marketing, nursing or math and science, as a preparation for useful, productive careers as citizens and parents. It used to be that universities would require such students to complete a liberal arts “core curriculum,” enriching them with the fundamentals of English literature, Western civilization, American history, and civics — on top of what used to be solid high school education in those subjects.

None of this is true anymore. Apart from a few small, niche colleges that are worth seeking out for select students, there are few schools which you can count on to provide your children with a decent basic education. Many do a good job preparing people for jobs, if they can keep their heads down and not be swayed into secular radicalism by peer pressure and propaganda. But that’s the best you can hope for.

Instead, parents must be proactive. They must see that raising children of faith in today’s environment is a solemn and difficult duty, conducted in mission territory where “soft” persecution is already underway. We cannot count on institutions to form our children; too many have been infiltrated, either openly or quietly, and betray their founding missions.

What’s a Parent to Do?

As editor for ten years of the Christian-friendly, conservative guide to education Choosing the Right College, I was often contacted by parents who sought advice about where their children should study. Obviously, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Some students — cussed non-joiners and misanthropes like me — would still do well at some Ivy League schools. (Recent graduate Aurora Griffin’s How I Stayed Catholic at Harvard recounts how one student kept her faith.) Other students really belong in the intense subculture of an intentionally Christian college. Many students (many more than you’d think) should skip college altogether and learn useful trades that pay better than most white-collar jobs.

But looking at the middle of the bell curve, I suspect that the wisest option for the average son or daughter of a conservative Christian family would run as follows:

1. If you’re lucky enough to have a serious, academically and doctrinally sound Christian high school close by you, and you can afford the tuition, by all means use it. If not….

2. Consider either home-schooling, or supplementing your children’s education — which might be much more meager or politicized than you could possibly imagine — with materials from a “classical Christian” home school (there are dozens to choose from) that focuses on the liberal arts. Such programs can provide much of what used to be offered in high schools and colleges in key areas of learning, from religion and philosophical reasoning to literature, art, history, and civics.

3. Once you’ve done your best at home to fill in the vast, yawning moral, cultural, and cognitive gaps that exist in the average curriculum, seriously consider state universities with low in-state tuition as the wisest option. There is really no reason to saddle your child with anything like the Class of 2017 average of $37,113 in student debt for what will likely be a disappointing experience. Look closely at smaller or satellite campuses, and community colleges that allow students to fulfill requirements at lower cost.

4. Look for single sex and substance-free dorms, if any exist. If not, consider the benefits of a student living at home and commuting to school. The “traditional college experience” was always overblown, and is in many places now toxic.

5. Investigate chaplaincies, religious student organizations, and churches where your child can continue to live out and deepen his life of faith. Don’t be surprised if the chaplain who serves your denomination at a public university is far more doctrinally shaky than your pastor back at home. If so, steer your child to a more faithful local congregation instead, and make sure you keep in regular communication with him about his faith and the challenges which he faces.

6. And above all, pray for your children. They will need it.

(For more from the author of “With Colleges Turning Into Indoctrination Camps, What Can Christian Parents Do?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Video: Why Are the Millennials Protesting?

/0 Comments/in , /by

The millennial generation has famously been described as Generation Me — or, to cite the title of a 2013 Time article, the Me, Me, Me Generation — and there is certainly some truth to that description. On the other hand, millennials have demonstrated many outstanding qualities, which is why the Time article contained these two subtitles: “Millennials are lazy, entitled narcissists who still live with their parents,” and “Why they’ll save us all.”

As for the self-evident self-centeredness of many millennials, this is partly the result of their upbringing and environment, as they have grown up in a culture of indulgence, a culture of narcissism, a culture of radical, leftist, campus ideology (which often revolves around “my feelings”), a culture of me-focused social media, which finds its ultimate expression in the selfie.

Do those of us who are older (I turn 62 next week) really think that we would have been much different had we been raised in this same environment?

As for the very clear strengths of many millennials, they do have a strong social conscience, they do want to change the world around them, they do want to get involved, and they have transcended some of the racial and ethnic boundaries that plagued us in the past.

I’m speaking, of course, in general terms, and there are endless exceptions to each of these two categories (weaknesses and strengths).

Still, the overall patterns seem clear, which leads me to the question posed in the title of this article: Why are the millennials protesting?

Millennial Depression: Epidemic?

One obvious answer is that they’re upset with the way the world is going, and this is their way of expressing their anger and frustration. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to deduce that, and I’m sure that’s part of the answer. But is it the entire answer? Perhaps not.

An article by Ewan Morrison on PJMedia.com carries the provocative heading: “Social Justice Syndrome: ‘Rising Tide of Personality Disorders Among Millennials’.”

He points to something called High Conflict Personality Disorder and notes that, “A 2016 UK survey found that, since 1990, rates of depression and anxiety among the young have increased by 70 percent, while the American Counseling Association has reported a ‘rising tide of personality disorders among millennials.’ That such disorders appear to be an acute problem with this generation may be an unintended outcome of the unprecedented experiment conducted in the 1990s and 2000s by progressive parents.”

This begs the question: Is something else going on in these millennial protests? Could there be more than a cry for social justice at stake? (Morrison says the answer is yes.)

A 2012 article on Healthline.com noted that “depression is an epidemic among college students,” citing statistics that indicated that “1 out of every 4 college students suffers from some form of mental illness, including depression,” that “44 percent of American college students report having symptoms of depression,” that “75 percent of college students do not seek help for mental health problems,” and that “suicide is the third leading cause of death among college students.”

Is it that far-fetched, then, to ask if there are several factors driving today’s social justice, protest movement among millennials? And is there a gospel-based solution to the cry of their heart?

I answer those questions on this video, and I’d love to hear your response — especially if you’re a millennial yourself.

(For more from the author of “Video: Why Are the Millennials Protesting?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Attorney General Seeks Resignations of 46 US Attorneys

/0 Comments/in , /by

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is seeking the resignations of 46 United States attorneys who were appointed during the prior presidential administration, the Justice Department said Friday.

Many of the federal prosecutors who were nominated by former President Barack Obama have already left their positions, but the nearly four dozen who stayed on in the first weeks of the Trump administration have been asked to leave “in order to ensure a uniform transition,” Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said.

“Until the new U.S. attorneys are confirmed, the dedicated career prosecutors in our U.S. attorney’s offices will continue the great work of the department in investigating, prosecuting and deterring the most violent offenders,” she said in a statement. (Read more from “Attorney General Seeks Resignations of 46 US Attorneys” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Week’s Best ‘Feminist’ Moments — and How They Put Women to Shame

/0 Comments/in , /by

This week was one for the history books! From International Women’s Day being overshadowed by the A Day Without a Woman strike, to a paper towel campaign sure to empower aspiring housewives, it’s hard to choose the moment from this week that best proved how far women’s rights have truly come. There are just too many! Let’s take a look.

Feminism for the Kitchen

On Tuesday, the day before International Women’s Day (sorry — #ADayWithoutAWoman), the paper-towel company Brawny debuted its limited-time ad campaign “celebrating strong women who inspire us all.” How? By putting a woman on its paper towel packaging!

This move is truly brilliant. After all, I know that I personally, as a woman, constantly felt belittled walking past Brawny’s paper towel packaging in Wal-mart with that plaid-wearing man staring me down and telling me that I’m weak. Kind of like how I feel when my husband washes the dishes. As if I’m not strong enough to do those dishes myself!

Brawny’s “strength has no gender” campaign gives me hope that one day, my husband will also get a “feminist makeover” and acknowledge that “women can be ‘brawny’ too.” Maybe then he’ll stop viewing me as some weakling and will let me clean the kitchen by myself for once.

Feminist Fashionista Victim

Friday morning National Review did us all a favor by showing us this stunning and, frankly, sobering photo of one of the “victims” of America’s backward, sexist, oppressive culture. Just look at the tweet below.

This woman, marching in New York while presumably striking from a job for which she is underpaid, is obviously dedicated to the feminist cause since she is wearing red (beautiful shade, might I add). The fact that her eyebrows, peaking defiantly above those daring sunglasses, appear to have been recently groomed to perfection proves how above and beyond she is willing to go for a feminist photo-op.

But I think the icing on the cake — the thing that really shows her dedication — is that Michael Kors jacket she’s flaunting. (While there is no way of knowing exactly how much was paid for this piece of rally garb, a quick Google search reveals that other jackets in the popular designer line run between $200-$1,000.) Inspiring!

It’s easy to see that life is hard for this victim of oppression. It was brave of her to show up Wednesday.

TIME Celebrates Female Accomplishment

On Thursday, TIME Magazine, the same publication that featured Hillary Clinton’s “The Future is Female” speech and recently reminded us that “women are shouting at the tops of their lungs” for equality, tweeted that Amal Clooney “shows off her baby bump at the United Nations.”

Incidentally, Clooney was at the U.N. as a lawyer representing a victim of ISIS crime, admonishing world leaders “to stand up for justice.” Nice, I guess, but not as important as her baby bump!

I’m just glad, especially since it’s National Women’s History month, that TIME is dedicated to reminding us women that our career accomplishments matter. As famed feminist Gloria Steinem told Newsweek, “All over the world we are struggling as females to be valued for our brains as well as our wombs.”

All Kidding Aside — There is a War on Women

It’s amusing to laugh at these feminist faux pas, but I think they underscore just how ridiculous and even counterproductive the modern American feminism movement has become, considering that a very real and violent war rages against millions of women all over the world.

I have no shame in calling myself a feminist, since I wholeheartedly endorse and refuse to ignore its true definition. I understand, however, that many women today don’t want to identify themselves as a “feminist,” given that the liberal political agenda is not only hijacking the term, but putting women everywhere to shame.

Claiming that not having access to abortion is “violence” while women like Yue Zhang are held down on an operation table and their children aborted against their will puts us to shame. Demanding free birth control while women and girls are mutilated and forever prevented from experiencing sexual pleasure puts us to shame. Walking out of your job while other women wish they were legally permitted to drive a car puts us to shame.

Is there sexism in America today? Of course (unfortunately, there always will be). But unlike so many females around the world, we already have all the empowerment we need to fight back, work hard, and prove the sexists, misogynists and chauvinists wrong.

Maybe we can start by looking into organizations dedicated to helping our sisters around the world, or by helping our under-privileged American sisters reach the opportunities available to them. No man — not even the president of the United States — is preventing us from doing so. (For more from the author of “This Week’s Best ‘Feminist’ Moments — and How They Put Women to Shame” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hawaii Has No Case Against Revised Travel Executive Order

/0 Comments/in , /by

The new lawsuit filed by Hawaii against President Donald Trump’s revised March 6 immigration executive order is just as unsound as the lawsuits filed by other states against the original order—despite what some courts have said about the original order or may say about the revised order.

Executive Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” imposes a 90-day suspension of entry from six terrorist safe havens in the Middle East and Africa until the administration is assured that our vetting procedures are sufficient to prevent dangerous aliens from getting into our country.

The order doesn’t apply to any foreigners who have already been granted a visa or permission to be in the country, such as permanent, resident aliens.

It also repeats the 120-day temporary suspension of refugee admissions for the same reason: to ensure we have sufficient vetting to stop what has happened in the past in the U.S. and has been happening in Europe in terms of terrorists successfully using the refugee process to get into the European Union.

Hawaii’s lawsuit consists almost entirely of policy arguments as opposed to legal claims, and the legal claims that are made are far-fetched.

There seems little doubt that the lawsuit was filed in Hawaii to take advantage of the generally liberal nature of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and its dominance by Democratic appointees. Seventy-two percent of the judges on that court were appointed by Democratic presidents, and at the district court level in Hawaii, the lawsuit has been assigned to Judge Derrick Watson, a President Barack Obama appointee.

The complaint attacks the president for issuing an order that prevents “immediate family members living in affected countries” from visiting their relatives in the United States, claiming that it will also prevent “universities, employers, and other institutions” from being able to “recruit or to welcome qualified individuals from the six designated countries.”

The basic legal flaw in all of this is that foreign aliens, whether they have family in the U.S. or not, have no constitutional right to enter the country. Neither universities, employers, nor other institutions have any constitutional right to recruit foreign aliens for jobs or positions except to the extent that Congress, which has plenary power over immigration, allows them to do so.

The complaint does at least acknowledge that Congress gave the president plenary power, in 8 U.S.C. §1182(f), to suspend the entry of any aliens into the country if he believes their entry would be “detrimental” to the United States. However, the complaint claims the president’s order “exceeds” his authority under this statute.

But given its broad grant of authority, it is hard to imagine how the president could possibly be exceeding his authority.

That is particularly true given the fact that the revised order explicitly states how the six designated countries are connected to the terrorism problem we face.

Three of the countries—Iran, Syria, and Sudan—are listed by the State Department as official sponsors of terrorism, while the other three—Libya, Somalia, and Yemen—were listed as “countries of concern” because of their terrorism problems by Jeh Johnson, homeland security secretary under Obama.

None of this matters to Hawaii, which claims that these countries were chosen only in order to discriminate against the Muslim religion, a claim that cannot be supported by the facts or the plain terms of the executive order.

After all, there are approximately 50 countries in the world with a majority Muslim population, yet entry from all of those countries with the exception of these six is not restricted or affected in any way by this revised executive order.

Instead of making rational, legal arguments, this complaint reads like a press release and makes outrageous claims, such as comparing this revised executive order to “the Chinese Exclusion acts and the imposition of martial law and Japanese internment after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.”

In fact, there are only seven pages of legal claims within the entire 38-page complaint.

The complaint also makes another basic error: It tries to fault the administration and claim some nefarious purpose behind the fact that these six countries were chosen and not other countries “whose nationals have perpetrated fatal terrorist attacks in the United States.”

But these six countries were chosen because they are either state sponsors of terrorism (and whose information on visa applicants can therefore not be trusted) or failing governments (like Libya) whose information cannot be trusted for similar reasons.

That stands in contrast to the working relationships we have with the government, military, and intelligence services of other countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which makes vetting their citizens more reliable.

By the way, given all of the concern that Hawaii expresses in this complaint for visitors, immigrants, and refugees, it is ironic to note that according to the Office of Refugee Resettlement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hawaii only took in a grand total of seven refugees in fiscal year 2015 out of the almost 70,000 taken into the U.S.

None were from the six countries affected by the executive order. Only the very liberal and “compassionate” District of Columbia took in fewer refugees—five—that year.

In addition to the state of Hawaii, the complaint was filed on behalf of Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii. His main claim is that because of the executive order, his mother, who is a Syrian national, will be prevented from “obtaining a visa to visit or reunite with her family in Hawaii.”

Yet the complaint admits that the last time she visited was in 2005. Given that, it seems contrived to base a claim of constitutional harm on an application for a visa being possibly delayed for another 90 days after a 12-year absence.

And, of course, the revised executive order does allow for case-by-case waivers by the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security in appropriate circumstances, including when a “foreign national seeks to enter the United States to visit or reside with a close family member … ”

There are a series of cases upholding the authority of the federal government to suspend visa entry. These include Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950), in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the exclusion without a hearing or any other form of due process of the alien war bride of an American citizen because her entry was considered detrimental to the interests of the U.S.

Not only was this held to be constitutional, but the Supreme Court said that it was not within the province of any court “to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.”

Moreover, the admission of aliens into this country is not a right, but a privilege. The supposed “due process” rights of any such alien are limited to the “procedures authorized by Congress.”

The complaint even raises the First Amendment, claiming that Trump’s order violates the Establishment Clause. The facts don’t support that claim since this executive order does not discriminate on the basis of religion.

But more importantly, the Supreme Court said in 1972 in Kleindienst v. Mandel, an alien exclusion case, that it would not review the reasons for the executive’s determination “nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment.”

This lawsuit appears to be a public relations exercise masquerading as a legal claim. If the Hawaii District Court or the 9th Circuit rule against this order, it will be another example of the courts ignoring the law and prior precedent.

Trump’s revised executive order is both legal and reasonable. It balances the need for national security and protecting the safety of the American public with the compassion we show in our welcoming of immigrants and visitors from all over the world. (For more from the author of “Hawaii Has No Case Against Revised Travel Executive Order” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Halfway to First 100 Days

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump this week threw his support behind a House Republican plan aimed at repealing and replacing Obamacare. While it’s not yet to the liking of everyone in his party, a health care proposal was a key pledge candidate Trump said would be part of his first 100 days in office.

Now, at the halfway mark of this critical period on Friday—the president has moved at a quick pace addressing the bulk of promised executive actions and proposals—such as taking early steps on border security and increased vetting of immigrants and refugees from Middle Eastern countries.

But there are still significant actions left to make and measures that haven’t been proposed in Congress in this crucial 100-day timeline.

The president has championed an “America First” agenda in the first 50 days, said Helen Aguirre Ferre, White House director of media affairs.

“He was very clear in his joint address to Congress, he’s not the president of the world, he’s the president of the United States of America, and he’s really shown it in the first 50 days as far as where his priorities are,” Ferre told The Daily Signal in a Facebook Live interview at the White House Friday.

Here’s a look at Trump’s promises at the halfway point.

Draining the Swamp

Trump promised six measures in the first 100 days to “clean up corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, D.C.”

The first measure on the list is unfulfilled, which is the one that requires the most effort.

Trump has not proposed—or at least hasn’t backed an existing proposal—for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress. Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Mike Lee, R-Utah, have backed term limit proposals, but the White House hasn’t thrown its weight behind the proposition yet. A constitutional amendment requires the vote of two-thirds of Congress to pass then must be ratified by three-quarters of the states before becoming law.

Trump’s other measures to clean up Washington only required executive actions, which he moved on.

Trump almost immediately made good on a pledge to impose a hiring freeze on federal employees to reduce the federal workforce through attrition.

The president also signed an executive order requiring that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.

He placed a five-year ban on White House officials from becoming lobbyists after they left government service and a lifetime ban on White House officials from lobbying for a foreign government. However, it would take an act of Congress to prohibit congressional staffers from lobbying.

Protecting American Workers

Trump made seven promises about protecting the jobs of American workers—which was a central focus of his campaign.

He has withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal President Barack Obama entered with 11 countries, but one that was never approved by Congress.

Trump pledged to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. While there hasn’t been an executive order to that effect, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said talks about NAFTA will launch later this year.

Ferre said she doesn’t have a timetable for every item that was part of the campaign’s 100-day plan. But, she said the president will address trade issues. Ferre added:

The president is bullish on trade, he wants to promote trade, but through bilateral trade agreements to make sure that we are getting a better bang for the buck. NAFTA for example, yes, let’s have good, robust trade with Mexico, but let’s make sure that this treaty that was negotiated over 20 years ago is still where it needs to be to address the needs of the American voters in 2017. I don’t know if it will necessarily be within the next 50 days, but the president has been very clear this is one of the trade issues that needs to be addressed. He took out the Pacific trade agreement because it was one that didn’t benefit American workers and really put some other countries at a greater advantage than American workers.

Trump has not yet directed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to label China a currency manipulator, and according to a news report, might be less likely to do so. Mnuchin said in late February that the U.S. will continue to use the existing criteria for judging whether China manipulates its currency.

Trump has also promised to lift restrictions on the production of American energy reserves. The White House has put this forward as part of its broader energy goals, but the White House hasn’t passed an executive order or formally backed legislation to this effect. Trump also has not moved to cancel payments to the United Nations climate change programs.

Trump signed an executive order to approve construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines. Authorizing Keystone construction was part of his 100-day plan.

On the same day as the two pipeline memorandums, Trump also issued an executive order “expediting environmental reviews and approvals for high priority infrastructure projects.”

In another presidential memorandum, Trump directed departments and agencies to support expanded manufacturing through streamlining permitting reviews and reducing regulations.

Restoring Security and Rule of Law

Trump vowed to “cancel every unconstitutional executive action” by Obama. He hasn’t moved back every Obama executive action yet, including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, a program that shields children of illegal immigrants from deportation.

Trump did nominate 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. During the campaign, Trump pledged to begin the process of replacing Scalia with a constitutionalist.

On Jan. 25, Trump signed a series of executive orders regarding immigration, his signature issue during the campaign. One order called for “immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism.”

He also signed an order scaling back funding for “sanctuary cities,” the term for municipalities that refuse to cooperate with federal officials in enforcing immigration law.

The most controversial Trump initiative has been suspending immigration from seven Middle Eastern countries that have been designated hotbeds for terrorism. The first executive order, issued on Jan. 27, was struck down by a Washington state U.S. district judge, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.

Trump issued a second executive order that identifies only six countries and clarifies other aspects of the first order regarding visas and dual citizenship. On Thursday, Hawaii became the first state to sue over the revised executive order. The Trump administration said it will continue to defend the original executive order.

Legislative Agenda

Trump promised to promote an economic plan to grow the economy by 4 percent per year, adding 25 million new jobs, according to his 100-day plan. That would include an across-the-board tax cut. Under his plan, the middle-class earners would get a 35 percent tax cut, while the number of tax brackets would be reduced from seven to three. Trump proposed lowering the business tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said tax reform is unlikely before the August recess. However, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Thursday he believed Congress could pass a package by the August deadline.

Trump hasn’t yet pushed a formal proposal to allow Americans to deduct child and elderly care from their taxes.

Meanwhile, Trump administration officials seem open to a border adjustment tax to prevent companies from laying off American workers for overseas tax breaks, then selling their products back into the United States. However, the “End Offshoring Act” named in his plan hasn’t been formally proposed.

Trump’s budget blueprint also addressed other legislative proposals included in the 100-day plan, such as rebuilding the military. The fiscal plan calls for a $54 billion hike in military spending, to be paid for by cuts to discretionary spending and foreign aid.

During his address to a joint session of Congress, Trump also talked about his proposal for a $1 trillion infrastructure program to be funded through federal and private sector money.

The Trump campaign also listed the “Restoring Community Safety Act,” as a legislative goal, to boost resources for federal law enforcement. While a bill hasn’t come forward, Trump took actions on two priorities of the proposal in executive actions.

He issued an executive order directing the attorney general to establish a task force on reducing crime and increasing public safety, and issued another executive order to “strengthen enforcement of federal law to thwart transnational criminal organizations” such as gangs, cartels, and racketeers. (For more from the author of “Trump Halfway to First 100 Days” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.