Since When Did Trump Start Embracing Obamacare’s Illegal Subsidies?

The Republican Party has become one giant scam PAC. When they are out of power they boldly declare Democrat policies to be illegal and unconstitutional, yet when they get into power they continue the same policies. We’ve already seen this with the Iran treaty and Obama’s executive amnesty, which are still being recognized and enforced by this administration. Now we are facing the same dilemma with the illegal cost-sharing subsidies for Obamacare. It’s one thing to phase out harmful policies over time, but when it comes to illegal executive actions how can they continue administering them for even one day?

Obamacare’s regulations are so crippling and actuarily insolvent that the individual mandate and the open-needed subsidies given to consumers have done nothing to fix the health care problem. In fact, they have only further distorted the market and increased prices. To that end, the Obama administration, in one of the most lawless decisions of a lawless presidency, decided to create an additional layer of subsidies outside of statute to be given directly to insurers. One of those subsidies — referred to as cost-sharing reductions — reimbursed insurers for discounting co-payments and deductibles for low-income enrollees (the premiums were subsidized by the main Obamacare payouts).

The problem with this program, aside from further inflating the cost for those who aren’t subsidized, is that it’s completely unconstitutional. The Obama administration paid insurers billions of dollars outside of an appropriation from Congress. CBO projects that under current policy, this illegal program will cost $130 billion over 10 years.

Last year, in House v. Burwell, the GOP-led House sued Obama for creating his own slush fund without Congress. In a rare victory and through the prism of a legitimate exercise of judicial power — interpreting instead of nullifying a statute — Judge Rosemary Collyer sided with House Republicans in asserting that the cost-sharing subsidies were appropriated without consent of Congress.

One would expect that the minute Tom Price took over HHS, the unconstitutional subsidies would vanish. One would also expect Trump’s lawyers to immediately drop the previous administration’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding the constitutionality of those subsidies, right?

Not so fast.

The administration has declined to drop the appeal of the district court’s ruling, and is in fact continuing to offer the subsidies. Thus, what Republican universally regarded as unconstitutional when they were out of power, they are now administering — much like they are illegally handing out work permits to illegal aliens amnestied under Obama.

Some might suggest that Trump is in a lose-lose situation because now that Obamacare is the law of the land, even more states will be without any insurers if he shuts off the subsidies. Trump himself recognized this predicament in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. The president said that on the one hand he’d love to see the law collapse, but he fears he would be blamed for the collapse instead of the supporters of Obamacare. Even though he didn’t shut off the spigot immediately, he is entertaining the idea of threatening to suspend the cost-sharing as a means of getting the Democrats to the table.

This is a false dichotomy. The president needs to realize that there is a third option: actually repealing Obamacare and demanding that Republicans support him! As leader of the party, rather than bully conservatives into supporting Obamacare 2.0 he should demand that liberal Republicans get with the program and fully repeal the law and actually solve the health care problem. At that point, there won’t be a need for the illegal subsidies, and in fact, they would only further distort the market. Democrats will never have an incentive at this point to buy into any GOP bill. There is only one option.

Donald Trump must harness his populist appeal against big government and the health care industry by immediately suspending the kickbacks for insurers. It is hard to anticipate the actions of the private sector. But by repealing the coverage mandates of Obamacare with a reasonable transition period, and concurrently making it clear that all subsidies and kickbacks are permanently terminated, insurance companies will have no wiggle room other than to utilize the de-regulation to offer a multitude of market-based plans, including catastrophic and limited benefit plans. They would be forced to compete for consumer demand rather than have a monopoly over the small trough of regulated and subsidized plans.

His message should be unambiguous: “we will not regulate you and we will not subsidize you, go out and compete for consumer demand.” Then he should travel the country and rail against a crony socialist health care system that looks like a grocery shelf in Venezuela instead of one in America. He must demand that the liberal Republicans get onboard with full repeal of Obamacare or he risks violating one of his core campaign promises.

Unfortunately, as we are seeing with an array of domestic and foreign policy issues, New York Democrats are pushing the president in the other direction. Noted health care expert, Ivanka Trump, as well as President Kushner and Gary Cohen, are reportedly pushing to keep the subsidies, while Steve Bannon is arguing that we follow the Constitution. Liberal congressional Republicans, such as Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., are also pushing for a continuation of the subsidies.

Sensing blood in the water, Democrats are now demanding that the subsidies be codified by Congress in the budget bill. Now that Democrats successfully jettisoned all conservative riders from the budget, why not go on offense and demand their priorities? After all, we can’t have a government shutdown. Now, instead of the battle lines over the budget being drawn over defunding refugee resettlement, Planned Parenthood, and the border wall, we must play defense on the cost-sharing subsidies.

Caving on principle begets more capitulation. There is no way to get around not repealing Obamacare but somehow pretending we are repealing it. The path forward is and always was very simple: full repeal of Obamacare with reasonable transition to what GOP has promised in terms of free market health care — or permanent irrelevance and humiliating electoral defeat. (For more from the author of “Since When Did Trump Start Embracing Obamacare’s Illegal Subsidies?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Republicans and Democrats Now See Trump as Part of Washington ‘Establishment’

President Trump has been sucked into the abyss of the Washington “establishment” since his inauguration, prominent Republicans and Democrats charged Sunday morning, and whether that’s a positive development depends entirely on one’s political point of view.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of the Republican Party’s most respected voices on national security, flatly declared that he hopes establishment types have influenced the president’s shifts on China, Syria and other foreign policy matters.

Mr. Trump two weeks ago abandoned his noninterventionist campaign rhetoric and ordered military strikes in Syria, and last week said he no longer considers China a “currency manipulator.”

The latter is an attempt by Mr. Trump to enlist China’s help in dealing with North Korea, which over the weekend conducted another missile test that, while failing in spectacular fashion, still represented an aggressive, antagonistic move.

Mr. Trump in recent days also walked back his campaign claim that NATO is an obsolete organization. (Read more from “Republicans and Democrats Now See Trump as Part of Washington ‘Establishment'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Arkansas Judge Joined Death-Penalty Protests on Same Day He Blocked Executions

An Arkansas judge attended two death-penalty protests on the same day that he issued an order blocking the state’s multiple executions, at one point allowing himself to be strapped to a cot in a simulation of an inmate slated to die by lethal injection.

Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Wendell Griffen “cannot be considered remotely impartial on issues related to the death penalty,” said Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge in an emergency petition filed Saturday challenging his order.

She said Mr. Griffen attended a 2 p.m. Friday rally at the state capitol in Little Rock before issuing the temporary restraining order at about 4:25 p.m., then resurfaced at an evening protest outside the governor’s mansion.

“Within an hour of granting the TRO [temporary restraining order], Judge Griffen was photographed at a second anti-death penalty rally — this one at the Governor’s Mansion, where Judge Griffen lay strapped down to a cot to simulate the experience of a condemned prisoner on a gurney,” said the petition. “Judge Griffen was protesting the very executions he had just enjoined.”

The judge also spoke out against the executions in a blog post earlier this month, saying that “Arkansas officials plan to commit a series of homicides,”according to the petition. (Read more from “Arkansas Judge Joined Death-Penalty Protests on Same Day He Blocked Executions” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

If Freedom Hurts Your Feelings, College Crybabies, Watch out for This Truth Grenade

It’s getting rather difficult to write headlines and lede paragraphs for these sorts of things, since the same tripe keeps bubbling up over and over from the septic tanks of the American academy.

A college president must profess that freedom of speech is oppressive and objective truth is all a “myth,” according to the demands of an open letter from a group of students at one California college.

It has been over a week since conservative scholar Heather Mac Donald was chased off the campus of Pomona College by the illiberal ilk of the same whiny thugs who mobbed Charles Murray at Middlebury College earlier this year.

“This is not just my loss of free speech,” Mac Donald told Fox and Friends afterwards. “These students are exercising brute force against their fellow students to prevent them from hearing me live.”

A few days prior to the incident, the university’s outgoing president, David Oxtoby, sent an email that reiterated the college’s commitment to “the exercise of free speech and academic freedom.”

Now, with all the trappings of a modern-day witch-burning, a trio of underclassmen graduating in 2019 and 2020, along with some 20-plus signatories, have demanded that Oxtoby formally recant in the form of a revised email “apologizing for the previous patronizing statement, enforcing that Pomona College does not tolerate hate speech and speech that projects violence onto the bodies of its marginalized students and oppressed peoples …”

The letter was first reported by the Claremont Independent, an independent student paper at the Claremont Colleges. According to the outlet’s story on Monday, the signatories have demanded a response by Tuesday, April 18.

But the recant is not enough for Pomona’s heretic hunters; These kids want some scalps. They are demanding that Pomona College and the Claremont system “take action against the Claremont Independent editorial staff for its continual perpetuation of hate speech, anti-Blackness, and intimidation toward students of marginalized backgrounds.”

Such tittles, of course, are all typical battle streamers one should aspire to accrue when writing anything that drifts slightly right of center on a college campus these days.

Most of the eight-paragraph letter remainder reads as a semi-coherent mini-screed articulating what appear to be this month’s most recent intersectionalist shibboleths. For those of you who may not be familiar with the latest liberty-hating campus fad-philosophy, Andrew Sullivan has a worthwhile synopsis at New York Magazine.

“On the surface, it’s a recent neo-Marxist theory that argues that social oppression does not simply apply to single categories of identity — such as race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. — but to all of them in an interlocking system of hierarchy and power,” he explains. “It is operating, in Orwell’s words, as a ‘smelly little orthodoxy,’ and it manifests itself, it seems to me, almost as a religion,” the enforcement of which is reminiscent of New England Puritanism.

But it gets better. As if the entire exercise were not rich enough, the authors of intersectional bull then turn their attention to the concept of truth.

“Your statement contains unnuanced views surrounding the academy and a belief in searching for some venerated truth,” the letter continues.

“Historically, white supremacy has venerated the idea of objectivity, and wielded a dichotomy of ‘subjectivity vs. objectivity’ as a means of silencing oppressed peoples. The idea that there is a single truth–’the Truth’–is a construct of the Euro-West that is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment, which was a movement that also described Black and Brown people as both subhuman and impervious to pain. This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny.”

One wonders how often the professors who indoctrinated these kids have asked them to cite their sources. I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same Enlightenment, because it sounds like they have a philosophical movement focused on human liberty and empirical truth confused with a weird racist version of Marvel Comics’ Luke Cage.

There are two great ironies here. The first one is that those doing this disparaging of the concept of a universal truth as being “deeply rooted in the Enlightenment” don’t realize how being free to pursue that truth without coercion is itself an Enlightenment principle, or that the rejection of this liberty is typically what leads to real oppression. [See: Fascism, Stalinism, Maoism, Sharia supremacism, etc.] If freedom hurts your feelings, I don’t really know where else to send you, since you clearly also can’t handle true oppression.

The concept of an objective truth isn’t rooted in one philosophical movement; Rather, philosophy itself is rooted in the search for truth, which is rooted in human nature. The difference between those who believe in ‘oppressive’ Enlightenment concepts like free speech and those who don’t is that the former are far more likely to engage in debate than brute-force tactics and toddler-esque demands.

The second irony here is that the letter goes on to espouse a metanarrative of history right after disparaging the concept of objective truth altogether. That’s a flag on the play. You don’t get to call a narrative absurd — or have the audacity to make someone recant their beliefs — when just a moment before you removed the framework that lets you claim one set of beliefs is greater than another. A freshman logic class should remedy this.

Claims like these are best met with philosopher Roger Scruton’s famous quip: “A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative,’ is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.” (For more from the author of “If Freedom Hurts Your Feelings, College Crybabies, Watch out for This Truth Grenade” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Suspect in Facebook Video Killing Shoots Himself to Death

The man who randomly gunned down a Cleveland retiree and posted video of the crime on Facebook killed himself Tuesday during a police chase in Pennsylvania that began when a McDonald’s drive-thru attendant recognized him.

It marked a violent end to the nearly 48-hour multi-state manhunt for Steve Stephens, whose case brought another round of criticism down on Facebook over how responsibly it polices objectionable material posted by users.

Acting on a tip from the McDonald’s, state troopers spotted Stephens leaving the restaurant in Erie and went after him, bumping his car to try to get it to stop, authorities said. He shot himself in the head after the car spun and came to a stop, police said. (Read more from “Suspect in Facebook Video Killing Shoots Himself to Death” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Syrian Christians Need Guns

As Stream readers know, I and my European organization lobby a lot for the Christians in Syria and Iraq. On one occasion I was working the corridors of the European Parliament (EP) for this cause, and had an ugly encounter. I met people who claimed to represent Syria’s Christians. I quickly realized who they really were: agents of the brutal Assad government.

They thought I was ignorant. So they tried to convince me that another Syrian Christian who had just addressed an EP conference was a paid stooge of Kurdish militias. They told me that the Federation of Northern Syria was mere propaganda for Kurdish “terrorists.” They even claimed that the Christian military group cooperating with Kurds and Arabs, the Syriac Military Council, did not exist.

What these people didn’t know was that the man they were maligning was a friend of mine. Nor that I had been to visit the headquarters of the Syriac Military Council, and met with the brave Syrian Christians who are fighting for their freedom. I know the Kurdish leaders who are fighting alongside Christians and other minority groups as comrades in arms.

I confronted these Assad loyalists with all these facts. The conversation grew awkward. Then I asked them if they were really working for Assad’s government. They left, and I never spotted them again in the European Parliament.

Meeting those people so willing to lie about their own country pointed up a tragic fact: The Assad regime has a very strong hold over thousands of helpless Christians in Syria. Assad presents himself as their protector, and many in the West accept this at face value. There’s a good reason for that: The strongest groups of anti-Assad rebels are radical Islamists tied to al Qaeda. These are the main groups backed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. And where they have conquered Christian towns, they have ethnically cleansed them, just as ISIS would.

If the U.S. helps these groups to replace Assad — the way the U.S. helped radical Islamists come to power in Iraq — the Christians of Syria would be finished. (Most of Iraq’s 1 million Christians were driven into refugee camps or killed after the U.S. invasion.) Knowing this, many of these unarmed, frightened people cling to Assad, as Iraqi Christians once clung to Saddam Hussein. And Assad works hard to keep these Christians under his control.

A friend of mine once visited a Syrian bishop. While they were sitting together the bishop got a call. It was from the Syrian secret service. They wanted to know whom he was meeting with. Assad keeps Christians on a very short leash indeed. The Christian community puts up with it out of fear of the alternatives: ISIS or al Qaeda. The bishops know that their flock is at Assad’s mercy.

Many Syrian Christians want an end to Assad’s dictatorship. Many have been victims of the regime. A friend of mine was tortured. Another saw his father “disappeared” by the Syrian secret police. I have received reports of young people being arrested and tortured because they “liked” the wrong Facebook pages.

The Christians of Al Qaryatayn trusted Assad to protect them. But in August 2015, he ignored their dire situation, and let ISIS take the town. He waited almost a year before taking action, leaving many of them to be abducted or killed by ISIS. The Assad regime has made extensive deals with ISIS to buy gas, electricity and oil. He made it his priority to fight the Free Syrian Army rather than ISIS.

Such facts explain why not all Christians in Syria support Assad. Some have instead joined the Syriac Military Council. As part of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) they have been fighting against ISIS in North-East Syria since 2013 and will be part of the operation to take Raqqa. The SDF is not in any direct conflict against the Assad regime, but it is completely independent of it. These Syriac-Assyrian Christians experienced his oppressive methods first-hand. They don’t want to go back under his control.

Thankfully, the U.S. is allied with the Syrian Democratic Forces. However, a legacy policy from the Obama administration is still in place: As I reported here at The Stream, the U.S. supports the Christian militias with words, but won’t give them arms.

Now President Trump has made the decision to back the removal of Assad from power. He made this choice tangible by shelling the Shayrat Airfield as retaliation for the chemical attack at Khan Sheikhun, for which the U.S. blamed Assad.

Even without that chemical attack, the Assad regime is clearly a brutal dictatorship. The Syrian people deserve better than Assad, ISIS or al Qaeda. The great risk is that if the U.S. intervenes directly, it will hand the country to al Qaeda — as the Turks and Saudis are spending millions trying to do.

As John Zmirak and Jason Jones wrote here at The Stream, the only decent, humane solution for Syria is a Swiss-style decentralized regime. Such a government would leave power in the hands of local and regional governments and protect minority groups. The Federation of Northern Syria implemented precisely this. Kurds allied with Christians and moderate Sunni Arabs control a large swathe of the country. Instead of allowing Assad or al Qaeda to crush this free, tolerant government, a peace plan should protect it. The Russians are already behind such a plan to federalize Syria. The U.S. must use its vast influence to support it.

If the U.S. really wants Assad out of power, it needs to remove one of his key sources of support: The desperate loyalty of terrified Syrian Christians. President Trump could do that, and steal Assad’s mantle as “protector” of these people, by backing those Syriac-Assyrian Christians in Syria who are already fighting ISIS: The Syriac Military Council. The Federation of Northern Syria already controls an area twice the size of Lebanon. Would the U.S. really like to see ISIS, al Qaeda or Assad gain control of the innocent people who now live there in safety and freedom?

Why continue Obama’s bankrupt policy of singling out Christians to deny them the means of self-defense against ISIS? Why let Assad pose as the only hope for Syrian Christians? Didn’t the American people elect Donald Trump because they wanted a new approach?

The U.S. should give Syria’s fighting Christians the weapons they ask for. Russia has no objection. Arming the Syriac Military Council would hurt Assad and ISIS, and help protect millions from al Qaeda in the time after. It would also allow them to arm the many who want to join them but cannot due to a lack of arms. Here’s a video plea from the Christians on the front lines fighting ISIS, asking President Trump for help:

Christians in the U.S. can make a real difference in Syria. Contact your representatives and the president, and tell them to help our fellow Christians protect their families. (For more from the author of “Syrian Christians Need Guns” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Children of Murdered Man Extended Forgiveness to Father’s Killer Hours before His Suicide

The nationwide search is over for Steve Stephens, the man who police said killed Robert Godwin, Sr. and posted a video of the crime on Facebook. After a brief pursuit Tuesday by Pennsylvania State Police, Stephens shot and killed himself. His death comes less than a day after Godwin’s children offered a remarkable testament of forgiveness and love to the man accused of killing their father.

“I just want him to know that God loves him,” Godwin’s daughter Tonya Godwin-Baines told CNN. “We love him. Yes, we’re hurt, but we have to forgive him because if we don’t forgive him, the Bible says your Heavenly Father won’t forgive you.”

He Lived What He Taught

Robert Godwin, Sr., 74, lived what he taught, his children said. “The one thing I would take away the most from my father is he taught us about God,” said Godwin-Baines. “How to fear God. How to love God. And how to forgive. Each one of us forgives the killer. The murderer.” “We want to wrap our arms around him,” she added.

“My dad would be really proud of us, and he would want this from us, and he would say, ‘Tonya, forgive him, because they know not what they do.’”

But even through the horror and hurt, Godwin wanted her father’s killer to know that God loves him. “I just would want him to know that even in his worst state, he’s loved, you know, by God, that God loves him, even in the bad stuff that he did to my dad. And that he has some worth while, even though he’s gonna have to go through many things to get better, there’s worth in him.”

She added, “As long as there’s life in him, there is hope for him too. I do believe that.”

Godwin said that the killer was a “sick individual,” but she held no hard feelings toward him because she knows God. “If I didn’t know Him as my God and my Savior, I could not forgive that man. And I feel no animosity against him at all. Actually, I feel sadness for him. I do.”

Godwin-Baines spoke to the killer directly in an interview with FoxNews. “To the young man who murdered my daddy, I ask that you please surrender. I forgive you, and love you but most importantly, God loves you. God can heal your mind and save your soul. PLEASE!”

Pennsylvania State Police posted on Twitter Tuesday morning that Stephens had committed suicide after a brief chase. Although Stephens had boasted on Facebook about having committed a dozen murders, no other victims have been found and Cleveland officials said Stephens had no prior criminal record.

(For more from the author of “Children of Murdered Man Extended Forgiveness to Father’s Killer Hours before His Suicide” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Feminists, Media Lay Undue Blame on Marines for Photo Scandal

In early March Thomas J. Brenner broke the story: “Hundreds of Marines investigated for sharing photos of naked colleagues.” In a force of more 181,000 Marines, the number of participants is miniscule: .0046%. Yet feminists are pushing a damaging false narrative: that this crass behavior is typical of male Marines. In fact, such disgraceful actions run contrary to standards of conduct and leadership that we Marines learn from boot camp on.

There’s more. It turns out that this scandal includes every military branch. But only the Marines are being singled out in the media. Why? Maybe because the other services didn’t protest integrating women into their combat units. We did.

Outraged feminists don’t care so much about victimized women as they do about compliance. Sign on to their “gender-free” vision or pay the price. Now they’re using the scandal as a battering ram. The prize? Their long-standing goal of integrating boot camp and tripling the number of women in the ranks of the Marines.

Sexualized Society

First, the obvious. Sharing other people’s private photos and posting ugly commentary is shameful. Participants should be penalized. But 99.9954 percent of Marines, most of them male, did not and would not behave this way. They are the rule. The offenders are the exception.

The photos have various sources. In one of the worst cases, a female Marine’s photo was taken (fully clothed in uniform) without her consent. Then someone shared it, along with her personal info, and obscene commentary. The male responsible had already been kicked out of the Corps by the time this scandal even went public.

By contrast, most of the other photos in this case were uploaded and shared by women themselves on social media. Then a few men copied and re-shared them. In other cases women shared private photos by phone with boyfriends who later exploited them. “Sexting” is now prevalent from the halls of Congress (thank you Anthony Weiner) to our college campuses. So are “sexy selfies.” Leftists have pushed for the military to look just like society. Congratulations. Now it does. The scandal is a gross symptom of our highly sexualized society in the digital age. It’s not a reflection of accepted Marine behavior. Maybe it’s also a distorted reaction to our modern culture’s lie: that the sexes are the same, so women are interchangeable with men.

Codes of Conduct

The military long had the latitude to punish abuses like the photo scandal under the category of conduct unbecoming. Or at least it used to. Standards of conduct are long gone now. Social engineers want the military is to be just as sexually liberated and expressive as the rest of society. As the Center for Military Readiness points out:

Section 654, Title 10, the 1993 law that the Senate repealed in the 2010 lame duck session, used to recognize that the military is a “specialized society” with unique requirements that are: “characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, which would not be acceptable in civilian society.”

In other words we stopped holding our military to more stringent standards than civilians. So where is “the line” now? We’ve torn down the old, higher standards of conduct — which once protected women. Yesterday this case would have been open and shut. Today it is not. The military is no longer allowed to be a “specialized society” requiring higher ethics of its members. Military women now must shower with transgender men-in-transition. They must share tents with men in the field. That is not an invasion of privacy. But posting a photo your ex-girlfriend shared with you is? The new “standard” is arbitrary.

While sharing private photos was certainly conduct unbecoming, here’s a newsflash: so is taking nude or pornographic photos of yourself and sharing them. But we’re recruiting from Generation Sexy Selfie. Women are degrading themselves energetically without any help from men. The Russians now have a trove of the racy photos, but they didn’t have to hack to get them. They can go to sites like Instagram’s “Curves ‘n Combat Boots.” There military ladies post shots of themselves in side-by-sides in uniform and out, clothing optional.

3rd-Wave Feminism Manifest

For several decades now, feminists have encouraged women to be open and free with their sexuality. We have sexy selfies, annual “slut week” on college campuses and vagina costumes to show for it. (And more unplanned pregnancy than ever.) But such behavior doesn’t empower women. It just encourages them to degrade themselves. Then when that doesn’t make them happy either, they learn to blame it on men. Feminist dogma doesn’t protect or empower young women. It just gives them a megaphone after they’ve been victimized.

Feminists forbid the tools of self-protection that could prevent abuses. Modesty, self-respect and collective social mores used to protect young women from men who are exploitative. But now we’re not allowed to give out obvious advice, like: Sexy selfies can’t be misused if you don’t take them and share them. And: If you don’t want to be considered a sexual object, first don’t objectify yourself. Advising abstinence is totally out of the question. That’s retrograde and sexually repressive. Such life advice is being skewered as “accepting the masculinist culture.”

In 2014, Miss USA Nia Sanchez was asked what young women could do to fight sexual assault. Her answer (as a fourth degree black belt) was that they should learn martial arts to better protect and defend themselves. For such common-sense advice she received a huge backlash from feminists. They claimed that she was victim-blaming. Similar backlash is frequent against those advocating gun ownership for women. Women shouldn’t have to protect themselves. Bad men should just … stop being bad. But that no more equips women for the dangers they may face than trusting criminals to follow gun laws. There will always be criminals and leftist regulations are notoriously inept at stopping them.

Young military women are being pushed into a minefield of close-quarters personal contact with men in their sexual prime. Rank structure and intense combat training further complicate things. But we’ve stripped women of the age-old tools that could help them navigate it. Instead they’re convinced to depend on government bureaucracy to protect them. Big Brother will punish forbidden speech. It will force men to treat them equally. Pass enough policies, and suddenly it will be problem-free for 20-year-old women and men to share tents in the field. Fighting attackers is presumably what these women will be doing in combat units. But instead of teaching them to protect themselves proactively, we’re urging them to use their voices to resist the “patriarchy.” That won’t help in the field against ISIS.

Oft-Used Tactics

Back in the 1990s Senator Pat Schroeder used the Tailhook scandal to push combat pilot jobs for women. The Navy’s annual celebration was notoriously debauched with men and women participating equally, until sexual assault occurred. The year of the scandal two women were assaulted but the number was grossly exaggerated. A witch hunt ensued for the sake of the same “masculinist culture” purge. Thousands were punished for the actions of a few — even men who weren’t there and had nothing to do with the event. Schroeder said opening the pilot jobs would stop scandals like Tailhook and give women the respect they deserve. The fact that it didn’t work just means there’s (perpetually) more work to be done.

More recently, a 2013 exposé claimed to have discovered 26,000 military sexual assaults in the previous year. Feminists used that study to … open ground combat units to women. When the public heard the astronomical number, the outcry was naturally immediate. The actual number of sexual assaults that year, however was only 3,374. The researchers got the much higher number by inferring it, via a ratio, across the military population. To get those numbers, they included everything from actual rape to “unwanted contact,” and again inferred many unreported cases. The total also included assaults that had occurred before the victim was even serving in the military, a Pentagon practice since 2008 in its annual reporting.

Inflating the numbers didn’t help the victims, nor did it prevent future crimes. The rate of sexual assaults had actually increased some five percent by 2016. Advocates for coed combat units used this baseless narrative: Women are assaulted more when they are barred from the toughest units. So the cure is to have more women in all military jobs. The public outcry simply provided a tool to push for their desired policy. With more women than ever in the military, we’re still waiting for rates of assault to drop. Instead they keep climbing.

Now in 2017, the Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Robert Neller was contrite before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand derided him for letting such behavior “fester” and not doing enough to eradicate “sexual violence” in the force. He had already condemned it in no uncertain terms as antithetical to Marine Corps standards and ethos. The investigation is ongoing and dozens have been punished so far. He has encouraged victims to come forward so that perps can be held accountable. (They can report to other women in the ranks if they prefer.) He demanded support for victims, forbade retaliation against them, and reformed social media policy to include criminal action for cyberbullying. As during Tailhook, common-sense changes and punishing the few participants will not be nearly enough for Gillibrand and her radical cadre.

Marines Are Punished for Wanting All-Male Combat Units

This is all about punishing the Marines for their original sin: Requesting that their combat units remain all-male. It was backed by mountains of peer-reviewed scientific data and common sense for effective warfighting. Even so, the Marines must atone. They must meet feminist demands by integrating Marine Corps boot camp and nearly tripling the number of females in the ranks. Those demanding this even say separate boot camps are the reason for all this misogyny.

Forget the fact that separate boot camps have produced superior Marines with much less distraction and bad conduct than coed boot camps. The Air Force and the Army have both had boot camp sex and rape scandals. Forget the fact that other branches have more women because they’re far less physically demanding. Opposition to integrating the combat arms is now being redefined as misogyny itself. It’s a bully’s tactic to achieve compliance without complaint.

Gen. Neller hasn’t defended the vast majority of Marines who are not part of this scandal, but I will. I served with great guys and came out of the Marines and deployment to Iraq unscathed. Thousands of other women across the military had the same experience. I never had reason to worry that a naked picture of me would end up with jeers online because there are none. I never worried that I’d regret last night’s debauchery with my Marine brothers because there was none. I followed a straightforward formula of maintaining boundaries, not flirting and not getting drunk with the guys socially. It was amazingly effective. I enjoyed the respect of my peers and a great enlistment. Such habits won’t prevent every instance of assault, but they go a long, long way to avoiding them. But we can no longer teach such mores without silly accusations of victim-blaming. And we are now pursuing policies that put women at greater risk in our military.

If there’s a culture of misogyny, then feminist ideology is the culprit. It fails young women and fails to reduce men’s abuse of them. Throwing more women at the problem won’t solve it. To think so is the definition of insanity: repeating what has been done before and expecting different results. Feminists won’t be accountable for their policy and ideological failures. They’ll just blame them on men. (For more from the author of “Feminists, Media Lay Undue Blame on Marines for Photo Scandal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Wounded Marine Who Lost Leg in Afghanistan Finishes Boston Marathon

Staff Sgt. Jose Luis Sanchez, a former Marine who lost the lower part of his left leg during a 2011 tour in Afghanistan, finished the Boston Marathon for the second time Monday.

Sanchez used a prosthetic blade running leg and competed on behalf of Team Semper Fi, a charity that “provides immediate financial assistance and lifetime support to post-9/11 wounded, critically ill and injured members of all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces.”

“I just felt that I had to run the Boston Marathon. I wanted to run the race and support the bombing survivors, to show them that life goes on and all you have to do is just push through it,” Sanchez told Uproxx days before his first Boston Marathon in 2016.

Sanchez told GrindTV he lost much of his drive after suffering his wound in Afghanistan.

“The injury humbled me. I lost all my muscle mass. I lost a ton of weight. I couldn’t walk or move or stand up. I needed assistance just to get out of my wheelchair, and even then I couldn’t walk more than a foot without collapsing,” Sanchez lamented. (Read more from “Wounded Marine Who Lost Leg in Afghanistan Finishes Boston Marathon” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go?

When Americans file their taxes, it’s natural to wonder, “Where do my tax dollars go? What do they fund? And what don’t they fund?”

According to the latest Congressional Budget Office report on the distribution of federal taxes, Washington collects about $20,000 from the average household. Yet the 2016 deficit was a whopping $587 billion.

The almost $3.3 trillion that the federal government taxes out of the economy each year isn’t enough to satiate its profligate spending.

So where do our tax dollars go?

Some believe most of it goes to welfare and foreign aid. Others believe defense and corporate welfare dominate the budget.

In reality, health entitlements—Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare—and Social Security are the largest programs. These entitlements and interest on the debt are set to consume every dollar of taxes paid in just over 20 years.

Social Security. The single largest federal program, Social Security accounts for roughly a quarter of all federal spending. Its trust funds are already paying out more than they take in, and as more people retire, the system will be under continued stress.

Without reform, the program’s trustees project benefits will need to be cut as much as 21 percent if nothing is done by 2034 (the Congressional Budget Office projects insolvency will come four years sooner).

Major health entitlements. Federal health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies are also growing at an unsustainable trajectory. Currently consuming 28 percent of the budget, health spending continues to grow faster than the economy.

Income security. Other income security programs—veterans’ benefits, unemployment compensation, food and housing assistance, federal employee retirement, and disability—are 18 percent of the budget, surpassing national defense spending.

Defense. The defense budget covers everything from military paychecks, to operations overseas, to the research, development, and acquisition of new technologies and equipment.

At 16 percent of the federal budget, defense spending is the last major category of federal spending and has been falling as a percent of the budget for the last decade.

And the rest?

Interest. Over the coming decade, U.S. debt held by the public is projected to balloon to 89 percent of gross domestic product—driven primarily by health and Social Security spending.

Deficit spending does not come cheap. As the debt increases, so does the cost of the interest we must pay to those who hold the debt, the unfortunate result of excessive government spending.

Currently, 6 percent of the budget is spent on interest—money that takes away from other priorities. Over the next 10 years, net interest on the debt is projected to rise to almost 12 percent of the budget, more than is projected to be spent on national defense.

Without reforming America’s massive and growing federal programs, Washington will have to continue to borrow increasing amounts of money, piling debt onto younger generations and putting the nation on an unsustainable economic course.

Growing government spending threatens higher taxes on current and future taxpayers. Increasing taxes is not an option. Washington already takes too much of the money that Americans work hard to earn.

Congress must rethink how it is spending the people’s money. The Heritage Foundation’s recently released “Blueprint for Balance” provides a workable guide for spending reform, listing $10 trillion of spending cuts that balance the budget in seven years.

The tax code is also badly in need of an update to make it less of a burden on the American people, American businesses, and the economy. Pro-growth tax reforms can unleash private investment, encourage job creation, and fuel economic growth, increasing prosperity for all Americans.

The first step to putting the federal budget back on a sustainable path is fully accounting for how precious taxpayer dollars are being used. Are you getting your money’s worth? (For more from the author of “Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.