Boom: Neil Gorsuch Just Made Originalists Happy with One Simple Question

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Donald Trump’s first appointee to the Supreme Court wasted no time in making his voice heard (literally) before the chamber Monday morning. Among the first questions Justice Neil Gorsuch asked was a positive indicator for originalists who supported his nomination.

Gorsuch’s process of finding the original meaning of the law, as written – one of the more comical non-scandals surrounding his confirmation hearing – has indeed followed him onto his first day on the job, as evidenced by a one-line question he asked from the bench:

“Wouldn’t it be a lot easier if we just followed the plain text of the statute?”

According to a report at ABC News, the newest justice spent a great deal of time questioning the federal worker’s lawyer about the wording of a statute related to the case, before grilling the Justice Department’s attorney about the meaning of the Civil Service Reform Act.

The case in question was Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, which revolves around the proper jurisdiction of a federal census worker’s employment dispute. Perry was the first of three that the once-again fully fledged bench was set to hear on the first day of its last session of the current term.

Despite the long, impressive resume that the Colorado native brings to Justice Scalia’s former seat, only time will tell what kind of jurist Trump’s first pick will turn out to be, and what kind of mark he will leave on the body of constitutional law.

But first impressions do matter, and one like this has been on many people’s wish list for a long time. (For more from the author of “Boom: Neil Gorsuch Just Made Originalists Happy with One Simple Question” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Cause for Alarm? China Put in Charge of Iranian Nuclear Site

/0 Comments/in , /by

China and Iran have signed a deal to modify an integral part of the latter’s nuclear program at the Arak heavy water nuclear site. The news comes just one day after the Trump administration certified that Iran has committed to its responsibilities under the nuclear agreement signed by the former Obama administration and the Iranian regime in 2015. On the same day that President Trump verified Iran’s compliance in the agreement, the Iranian Supreme Leader declared the United States an “enemy” nation.

A heavy water plant is an essential element in producing the material needed to developing a nuclear weapons program. Iran insists that the Arak reactor is purposed with producing “isotopes for cancer and other medical treatments.” However, heavy water reactors are needed to cool down reactors that churn out plutonium, which can be used to create a nuclear bomb.

The Arak plant was uncovered thanks to 2002 satellite images from the Institute for Science and International Security.

As part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreed to by Iran and world powers, Iran is supposed to modify the heavy water reactor so it could not produce weapons-grade plutonium.

Whether the United States can trust China to lead the project is a matter of concern. Most geopolitical observer recognize that China views Iran as an ally and the United States as an adversary.

Moreover, China has previously helped supply the Iranian regime with nuclear material and advanced missile technology that would have been otherwise likely impossible to produce internally. Since the early 80s, the Chinese government has clandestinely and overtly helped the Mullahs develop their nuclear program.

International agencies such as the United Nations have been tasked with verifying compliance. No American inspectors are allowed on any of the Iranian nuclear sites, thanks to terms agreed to by the Obama administration. Therefore, whether or not Iran is cheating on the nuke deal is left completely to foreign bodies.

Iran has already breached the material limits used by the nuclear reactor that were imposed under the JCPOA. The IAEA, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, said Tehran exceeded the limit twice last year.

Beijing is looking forward to beginning the project. “The signing of this contract will create good conditions for substantively starting the redesign project,” said China Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang. (For more from the author of “Cause for Alarm? China Put in Charge of Iranian Nuclear Site” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Professor Paints Picture of Trump’s Decapitated Head, Puts It on Display at Alaska College

/0 Comments/in , /by

A professor at an Alaska university has put a painting of President Donald Trump’s decapitated head on display at the college art gallery.

Thomas Chung, assistant professor of painting at the University of Alaska Anchorage, painted a portrait of a “Captain America” actor holding Trump’s severed head with two eagles to his side and a young Hillary Clinton holding onto the actor’s leg, KTUU reported.

“I was reminded of those ’80s rock posters,” said Chung, “where there’s a woman in tattered clothes clinging to a strong male hero’s leg.”

The professor explained that the 2016 presidential election results influenced his painting.

“After Trump was elected, I spent days just weeping,” the professor said. “And it was really surprising, because I’m not a political person. I am a social artist. I deal mostly in ideals of culture and global culture, but this election bled into that.” (For more from the author of “Professor Paints Picture of Trump’s Decapitated Head, Puts It on Display at College” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

No Joke: Portland Comics Charge $ for Abortion Yuk-Fest

/0 Comments/in /by

One wonders when the pro-abortion left will simply admit that it has elevated abortion to the level of sacrament — but apparently it still makes for good entertainment.

Now, at one show in the great kooky Northwest, the killing of the innocent is getting its own story time, just for the laughs — and people are paying to see it.

According to a story in the Portland Mercury, a weekly newspaper of Oregon’s perpetually ripe-for-parody leftist haven, a group of female comedians are coming together to “storytell” their abortions.

Hosted by actress and pro-abortion activist Mary Numair, whose other accomplishments include screaming about yeast infections to pro-life demonstrators, the May event will showcase five female comedians who will tell their own stories about the decisions to terminate their pregnancies. The admission charge is $5.

The “storytelling” is presented by Shout Your Abortion, a group that encourages women to share their stories about the procedure in the hopes of normalizing it culturally. The group began as a hashtag on social media in 2015 in an effort to provide cover for Planned Parenthood, Lifesite News reported, following the release of videos by the Center for Medical Progress that renewed long-dormant calls to defund the organization.

“The best way to end the stigma and shame regarding the subject of abortion is to talk about it,” reads the event’s Facebook page. “So let’s do this, let’s tell our abortion stories.”

Of course this event is nothing new in message, just in medium. It’s just a new package for the same tired message that the abortion industry and its followers have been falling back on for years: that the killing of a child is somehow necessary because of things like careers, educations, and bad relationships.

Writing counter to these decades-old claims, Lori Sanders tells a far different story at The Federalist. Recalling how she chose her son’s life over her own fears of being “not ready” to be a mom, Sanders says:

“My heart breaks for those who made the decision to focus on themselves … Those who tweet to #shoutyourabortion and loudly proclaim the benefits to their lives—I weep for you and the lessons you’ll never learn through sacrifice. I wasn’t a special case, one whose preconceived convictions led me to a decision. I have my convictions because of the decision that I made and all I’ve been able to do.”

Reegardless of how the self-congratulatory crowd in Portland may make themselves feel or how an evening of narrative by comics can reaffirm the worldviews of the attendees, one wonders if those tales will be compelling enough to justify the taking of an innocent life. My money is on “not.” (For more from the author of “No Joke: Portland Comics Charge $ for Abortion Yuk-Fest” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Harvard: Gender Changes Daily. Disagreement Is Violence

/0 Comments/in , /by

Harvard University is using tuition dollars to tell students that “there are more than two sexes” and that “gender is fluid and changing.” The school is also telling students gender can change daily —sometimes depending on what people choose to wear. If you disagree with those statements, you are promoting “systemic violence.”

The office of BGLTQ Student Life has released a guide promoting delusions instructing students to “fight transphobia” and “get the facts about gender diversity,” Peter Van Voorhis reports for Campus Reform.

The guide, which was distributed to students on campus, declares that “there are more than two sexes” and that “gender is fluid and changing,” adding that someone’s gender identity “can be affirmed and/or expressed in many ways,” and can even “change from day to day.”

Yes, that’s right. As Voorhis reports, “the flyer tells students that ‘for many people—cis and trans—gender expression, identity, and self-understanding can change from day to day,’ noting that gender can be expressed through one’s ‘speech, mannerisms, clothing,’ and more.”

Gender identity can fluctuate daily now?

How are you supposed to write a law that protects against gender or sex discrimination if a person’s “gender identity” can change daily? James Madison might’ve said something important about “mutable” or constantly changing government and “incoherent” laws once.

Pointing out the land of confusion into which the LGBT-rights movement is forcing us to descend could get students into trouble, however.

As the flyer reads, “Transphobic misinformation is a form of systemic violence.” What your kids are being taught, at Harvard University and likely elsewhere, is that traditional understandings of the roles of men and women the distinctions between male and female are “violence.”

If you follow this line of thinking then when, for example, Jesus says in Matthew 19, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” — that’s violence.

Or, in Harvard’s terms, “Fixed binaries and biological essentialism, manifest in gendered language, misgendering someone, and the policing of trans bodies, threaten the lives of trans people.”

Some students are not happy their tuition dollars are being used to deny biological reality to make other students more comfortable with their mental delusions.

Campus Reform reports that several outraged students were upset school funds were used for this campaign, but declined to comment on for fear of “potential repercussions from the school.” One wonders if Harvard’s administration has paused to consider whether they are providing a safe space for students who think that men are men and women are women.

This is the sad state of affairs at colleges and universities. Traditional values are called violent. Mob violence to silence free speech is called justice. The same places that claim to create safe spaces for the liberal students are too dangerous for alternative points of view.

When will enough be enough? (For more from the author of “Harvard: Gender Changes Daily. Disagreement Is Violence” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

6 Reasons to Be Skeptical of RINO Tax ‘Reform’

/0 Comments/in , /by

“We must do ‘something’ on health care so we can get to tax reform. Now!”

This is the latest rage and clamor among the big donors, lobbyists, and consultants within the less intelligent arm of the Democrat Party, otherwise known as the GOP.

The entire argument is built upon a false premise and will not result in sound policy unless conservatives grab the mantle on tax policy away from the party establishment.

There are many emergency public policy issues vexing our economy, society, sovereignty, security, and the core of our ability to operate as a democratic republic: the judicial oligarchy crisis, Afghanistan, debt, the entitlement and dependency state, uncontrolled immigration, Islamic terrorism, the collapse of the civil society, and challenges to religious liberty and core family values, just to name a few. These are all either new problems or issues where the trends have dramatically worsened, have become unsustainable, and will destroy our country. The same cannot be said of the tax code, at least not in terms of trends, unsustainability, and a sense of urgency.

As much as we all hate the tax code, “tax reform” is not one of those emergency “triage” issues needed to solve an unsustainable trajectory within the next few months. If anything, relative to almost any other policy issue, the trend on taxes has gotten relatively better after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. The political realities of what we are dealing with today will make any play for tax reform an interception rather than a touchdown. Which is why it would be better to stay away from it, at least from a “comprehensive approach,” and tackle more pressing issues, such as immigration, terrorism, and homeland security – or de-regulation of major industries, government reforms, and stripping down the judiciary from its autocratic nature.

Don’t get me wrong: A fair tax or a truly low flat tax that doesn’t punish productivity, redistribute wealth, and socially engineer the economy with asset bubbles induced by tax pork would go a long way towards reviving our economy. There would be no better cause to pursue. Except that is not on the menu. Because of the following factors, it is clear that “tax reform,” which is already ill-defined, will never result in the sort of fair, pro-growth, limited-government outcomes we are looking for and will likely make things worse.

1. Debt is the challenge of our time, not taxes: Taxes used to be the most important domestic policy issue, not only because the tax structure determined how much money stayed in the private sector, but because it was the source of nourishment for the federal leviathan. As such, by cutting taxes, we’d accomplish both the goals of economic growth and limiting the size of government. That era is over. Debt, serviced by monetary manipulation, is the new nourishment of a much greater entitlement state than Reagan ever feared. That is the challenge of our time, much like taxes were the challenge of Reagan’s time. The lesson of the Bush years was that we succeeded on the tax issue but needed to begin work on spending, entitlements, and dependency. Instead, we have gone backwards.

2. Budget scoring severely limits tax reform: Closely related to the first point – because crushing debt and entitlements are the challenge of our time, it makes balanced budgets that much harder. Mandatory spending is projected to cost $34 trillion over the next 10 years, and deficits are estimated to grow by $7.8 trillion. And that is using the CBO’s everlasting optimistic baseline for both revenues and spending. The health care crisis alone will sink this country into insolvency before we reach the end of the 10-year budget window. In addition, there is a consensus to increase military spending. And that doesn’t begin to factor in Ivankacare and the $1 trillion infrastructure porkulous plan. This is a very different era from the Bush years, when there was a projected surplus. To be clear, I’m not one of those who believes we should pass up any opportunity to cut taxes. We have already crossed the Rubicon of Greece-like debt by funding endless dependency without paying for it, so I’m not about to start applying rules of balance to giving people back their own money and growing the economy. But that is the view of conservatives. Republicans in Washington will feel constrained by the need for deficit-neutral “tax reform.” They are already looking for all sorts of corresponding tax increases and new revenue streams to offset any cuts. That will not end well.

3. Not a lot of juice to squeeze out of tax cuts for non-wealthy: The dirty little secret is that half of tax filers don’t pay, on net, federal income taxes. Thanks in large part to the success of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts (plus the Obama tax increases on the wealthy), lower income and lower-middle income earners don’t incur a net positive tax liability. The bottom two brackets have already been eliminated. By definition, any tax cut is going to be enjoyed primarily by the wealthy because they are the ones who pay the taxes.

According to the Tax Foundation, in 2014, the top 1 percent paid 39.5 percent of all federal income taxes, even though they earned just 20 percent of the income pie. The top 5 percent paid 60 percent of the income taxes, even though they earned just 36 percent of the income. The bottom 50 percent, on the other hand, paid just 2.75 percent of the income taxes, even though they earned 11 percent of the income pie. The point is that the income tax is already more progressive than it’s ever been. Yet Republicans have no ability or desire to properly articulate this. Inevitably, they are accused of “cutting taxes for the wealthy.” As such, every time they pick up the “tax reform” ball, they wind up throwing even more refundable tax credits at the bottom and raising taxes, on net, for those at the top.

There is simply not a lot that can be done in terms of a tax cut plan that won’t be perceived as tax cuts for the rich. Not that there is anything wrong with that. This is why it would be wise for Republicans to focus on the hidden tax of regulations, such as the ethanol mandate and many other pernicious interventions, which collectively cost all families $15,000 a year. Until we abolish the 16th Amendment through an Article V convention, I just don’t see any political appetite from this party to truly flatten out the tax code. A true flat tax (even with an exception of the first $30,000) will result in a tax increase on many people. Personally, I’m fine with a low flat tax raising just enough revenue to fund the constitutional aspects of the federal government and with making sure that such a tax would be paid by everyone. But politically speaking, Republicans will never let that happen.

4. Liberals are writing the tax plan: The main players behind the administration’s tax plan are Gary Cohen, Steven Mnuchin, and Wilbur Ross – not a single Republican among them. This will not end well.

5. Buying off Democrats with porkulous: The administration has already hinted that it intends to work to garner Democrat votes rather than push reforms to the existing practice of the filibuster in the Senate. Some prominent supply-siders are already advocating for a trade of tax cuts for more infrastructure spending. As we’ve noted before, transportation spending should be devolved to the states instead of purveying the wasteful federal transportation sinkhole. It’s not worth the trade.

6. Health care must be fixed first: One of the most important reforms that can be made to the tax code is equalizing the treatment of health insurance plans purchased by the individual with employer-provided plans. This will help tackle “the original sin” of health care and get more people to cost-continuously purchase their own plans rather than rely on the over-utilized employer system. The problem is that until and unless Obamacare is repealed, there is no individual market left to which people can take their tax deduction and purchase a cheap plan. Given that Republicans don’t plan to repeal Obamacare – just simply “pass a health care bill” – there is no point in fixing the tax distortion on health insurance.

The path forward

The best way to preempt a bad tax plan is for conservative members of Congress to introduce Trump’s campaign tax plan as a bill and approach the president with it in the hopes of making this plan the default position. His plan is actually really good and politically defensible because it is not flat (which is nearly impossible to achieve), cuts everyone’s taxes, but lowers marginal rates significantly. Recently, the Trump administration has disavowed this plan, but conservatives should not let the president violate another campaign pledge.

However, even such a plan that we agree with will take months to iron out the details and build the proper case for it publicly. If the president doesn’t understand that and wants a quick “victory,” the best course of action is to push for an immediate reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent without getting rid of any deductions (which would disrupt business models and take longer to work out). This will inject an immediate pro-growth shot into the economy at a time when it badly needs a recovery.

A modest reduction in corporate taxes is a proposition even many Democrats are on record as supporting. This has been a consensus issue, it will not disrupt the market, and it will not lose much revenue. Corporate taxes don’t bring in that much revenue to begin with. This can all be done in the short run while making the case for Trump’s original plan on individual taxes over the next few months.

When approaching the tax issue, Republicans cannot make the same mistake they did with the health care bill. We can’t assume “tax reform” is a policy punchline we all agree with, the same way “repealing Obamacare” clearly didn’t mean what it denoted. Both the broad principles and philosophy behind the effort as well as the details of the specific proposal matter. In the case of health care, Republicans adopted the Democrat philosophy, and the details of their original bill codified Obamacare instead of repealing it. The same will hold true for taxes unless conservatives take a proactive approach to stave off bad policy. (For more from the author of “6 Reasons to Be Skeptical of RINO Tax ‘Reform'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bill O’Reilly out at Fox News Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations

/0 Comments/in , /by

Bill O’Reilly is leaving the Fox News Channel, the network’s parent company announced today.

“After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel,” 21st Century Fox said in a statement.

The star host has been dogged by misconduct claims — some sexual in nature — since an April 1 story in The New York Times detailed alleged settlements made between the host and five women who accused him of harassment and sexual misconduct.

An internal 21st Century Fox memo obtained by ABC News said that the “decision follows an extensive review done in collaboration with outside counsel.” The memo was signed by Rupert, Lachlan and James Murdoch, the company’s top executives.

“We want to underscore our consistent commitment to fostering a work environment built on the values of trust and respect,” the memo concluded. (Read more from “Bill O’Reilly out at Fox News Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

25 Percent of Millennials Who Live at Home Are Unemployed

/0 Comments/in , /by

A quarter of millennials living at home with their parents have no job and no responsibilities. Twenty-five percent of 18-to-34-year-olds in the U.S. living under their parents’ roof are on an extended vacation, but not entirely by choice.

The U.S. Census Bureau released a comprehensive study Wednesday analyzing the economic and demographic changes of young adults from 1970 to 2016. Nearly 1-in-3 millennials live at home with one-in-four living idly, meaning they neither go to school or work. That’s approximately 2.2 million people.

The majority of the 2.2 million have a high school degree or less, over half of them are male, and about 20 percent of them have at least one child. A quarter of the group also has some type of disability.

The report also found another interesting development among young cohorts: Unlike their parents and other previous generations that chose to get married young, millennials are pushing their marriage prospects back rather dramatically . . .

The vast majority of Americans hold to the belief that educational and financially lucrative accomplishments are important milestones of adulthood. Those beliefs stand in stark contrast to their feelings about marriage and parenthood. (Read more from “25 Percent of Millennials Who Live at Home Are Unemployed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Zuckerberg Might Just Make Russia’s 25-Year-Old Spy Dreams a Reality

/0 Comments/in , /by

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said Tuesday during an annual conference his tech company is developing a futuristic new technology, a concept the Russians may have tried to bring to fruition decades ago.

“Some of the work that we’re doing in Building 8, even further out beyond augmented reality, … includes work around direct brain interfaces that are going to eventually, one day, let you communicate using only your mind,” Zuckerberg said, admitting, though, that such “stuff is really far out.” Building 8 is Facebook’s innovation research department.

Zuckerberg’s presentation primarily focused on a preliminary augmented reality platform, showing the audience that users of its technology may soon be able to overlay a virtual world on top of the physical one. He used Pokémon Go as an example, a mobile game that places digital fictional creatures on top of the real scenery around a player.

Eventually, the “direct brain interface” (or DBI) will be embedded on their augmented reality platform, meaning communicating will potentially only require the brain . . .

Dr. Igor Smirnov, a Russian scientist at the Moscow Medical Academy, conducted substantial amounts of research on a field of human behavior he called “psychoecology.” He eventually developed an acoustic mind control device, which was claimed to be most effective for treating drug and alcohol addiction. (Read more from “Zuckerberg Might Just Make Russia’s 25-Year-Old Spy Dreams a Reality” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A Glaring Example of Our Fallen Morals in the Recent Georgia Election

/0 Comments/in , , /by

As far as I can tell, the comment received virtually no response from the media, nor was it deemed worthy of a response. After all, what’s the big deal about a political candidate casually mentioning that he’s living with his longtime girlfriend? Don’t some of our favorite TV couples live together out of wedlock? And don’t some of our friends and neighbors and family members live together out of wedlock?

They certainly do.

And that illustrates the point I’m making. We’ve come a long way in the last 50 years, and where we find ourselves today is far from good.

And that was that. No big deal, no eyebrows raised, and no suggestion that this was anything other than normal.

When congressional candidate Jon Ossoff was asked if he lived in the district in which he was running for office, he explained that he had moved out of the district to support his girlfriend while she finished medical school: “I’ve been living with my girlfriend, Alicia, for 12 years now down by Emory University where she’s a full-time medical student,” he said. “As soon as she concludes her medical training, I’ll be 10 minutes back up the street in the district where I grew up.”

At least one TV commentator did ask playfully when they were getting married. After all, 12 years is a long time to live together without marriage. But the fact they live together and that he’s running for political office wasn’t even worthy of a yawn.

Why should it be?

Today we have gay political leaders, bisexual political leaders, and transgender political leaders, not to mention a president who has been married three times.

We also have leaders like Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has been going with his girlfriend Sandra Lee since 2005, with plans to marry “some day.” Does anyone imagine that they are not sleeping together?

But once again, that’s the point I’m making.

What is the Meaning of Marriage in Our Culture Today?

It’s not that Ossoff is a terrible filthy sinner because he lives with his girlfriend. After all, it appears that they’ve been in a steady relationship for a dozen years, which means they’ve stayed together a lot longer than many married couples.

It’s just another reflection on the fallen state of our culture. After all, if you can live together for years without being married (and even have kids out of wedlock), and then, once you’re married, divorce for any reason, what’s the meaning of marriage?

For me personally, it was jarring to hear Ossoff’s comments, but not because they were so shocking. It’s because they weren’t shocking at all. That’s what jarred me afresh.

Can you imagine Ronald Reagan running for president (or, governor, for that matter) while living with Nancy rather than being married to her? Or George H. W. Bush living with Barbara? Or Bill Clinton living with Hillary? Or George W. Bush living with Laura? Or Barack Obama living with Michelle? Or even Donald Trump living with Melania?

Even so, how long will it be before an Andrew Cuomo can run for president while not being married to his girlfriend? It surely didn’t stop him from running for governor, and it’s not a big jump from having a longtime girlfriend to living with her.

Again, my point is not to say, “Look at how evil these people are! They are committing the unpardonable sin!”

My point is to say, “Wake up America! Our morals are collapsing before our eyes, and marriage is becoming increasingly meaningless.”

What Happens When We Discount the Sanctity of Marriage

Recent studies confirm what we have known for years: cohabitation is harmful more than helpful.

An April 1 report from the U.K.’s Marriage Foundation announced that, “Cohabiting couples now account for over half of family breakdown despite making up only a fifth of parents.”

A March 21 article noted that, “The level of doubt and mistrust among informal couples is two-and-a-half times the amount of concern about commitment detected among married couples.”

This indicates that something really happens when couples commit to marry, even in our divorce ridden cultures.

Yet it’s not just the couples who are affected. Another March article, summarizing a major, international study, reported that,

According to a recent sociological study, cohabitation has a notably deleterious impact on one particular group: kids. “As marriage becomes less likely to anchor the adult life course across the globe, growing numbers of children may be thrown into increasingly turbulent family waters,” writes Bradford Wilcox in Foreign Affairs.

These are significant findings, and they remind us that there is a large, ripple effect when we tamper with the sanctity of marriage. So, when we hear about a famous, unmarried athlete who is about to have his or her first child, we shouldn’t just think, “How wonderful!” For the sake of that child, we should think, “How much better it would be if the mom and dad were already committed in marriage.”

A Similar Scenario, 70 Years Ago

Writing about events taking place in 2014, Ann Coulter noted that, “In 1947, it was a scandal when Brooklyn Dodgers manager Leo Durocher was alleged to have been having an affair with a married actress, Laraine Day.”

She explains,

Durocher himself was not married, but Day, a Mormon who never smoked or drank, divorced her husband and married Durocher the day after being granted a provisional divorce decree. The divorce wasn’t final, so the judge who signed the decree ordered Day and Durocher to live separately in California. (Yes, this was so long ago, the institution of marriage was still respected in California.)

And they did. She lived with her mother in Santa Monica and Durocher moved into a nearby hotel.

Yet and still, the Catholic Youth Organization withdrew its support for the Brooklyn Dodgers and advised its members to boycott the team as long as Durocher remained manager.

As CYO director Rev. Vincent J. Powell explained in a letter, Durocher was not the sort of person “we want our youth to idealize and imitate,” adding that the CYO could not be “officially associated with a man who presents an example in contradiction to our moral teachings.”

Yes, that was New York City in the late 1940’s. Need I say more?

Acknowledging Our Culture’s Broken Condition

In my forthcoming book, Saving a Sick America, I do lay out a plan for moral and cultural reformation. But that plan for the future starts with one essential ingredient today: We must realize how sick we are.

Mr. Ossoff’s recent comment, as benign as it may have seemed, is another reminder of our broken condition.

Call me Puritanical and prudish if you like. My words will be vindicated over time. (For more from the author of “A Glaring Example of Our Fallen Morals in the Recent Georgia Election” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.