Immigration Arrests Jump Nearly 40% Under Trump

Immigration arrests climbed yet again in April as federal agents continued to track down both criminal and noncriminal aliens in far greater numbers over the first 100 days of the Trump administration than they did under former President Barack Obama a year ago.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations deportation officers administratively arrested 41,318 illegal immigrants on civil immigration charges between Jan. 22 and April 29, according to agency data released Wednesday. That was a 38 percent jump over the 30,028 arrests made in the same time period in 2016, the final year of the Obama administration.

ICE says it has averaged about 400 arrests per day since President Donald Trump signed executive orders in January authorizing stepped-up immigration enforcement.

“Agents and officers have been given clear direction to focus on threats to public safety and national security, which has resulted in a substantial increase in the arrest of convicted criminal aliens,” ICE acting Director Thomas Homan said in a statement. “However, when we encounter others who are in the country unlawfully, we will execute our sworn duty and enforce the law.”

The arrest data show a continuation of a trend that became apparent in the first two months of Trump’s presidency. ICE arrested 21,362 illegal immigrants from Inauguration Day through March 13, about 33 percent more than the number of immigration arrests made in same period in 2016. (Read more from “Immigration Arrests Jump Nearly 40% Under Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What a Middle Eastern NATO Could Accomplish for Trump

With the Middle East experiencing renewed levels of tumult, it begs consideration: Does the region need its own version of NATO?

This idea appeared in The Washington Post just this week. Josh Rogin reported that during the president’s stop in Saudi Arabia, he might lay out a proposal for a regional security alliance of Arab states.

It is not surprising that two major ports of call in the region—Israel and Saudi Arabia—would be part of President Donald Trump’s travels. The administration has put peace and stability in the Middle East at the top of his foreign policy agenda.

In addition to these state visits, the president has already met in Washington with leaders from Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey.

More than glad-handing, all these meetings look substantive, part of the U.S. effort to knit together a regional effort to achieve two key strategic goals: countering the destabilizing influence of Iran, and defeating the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.

Traditionally, the U.S. has managed its Middle East influence through bilateral alliances. But even during the presidential transition, there were proposals for establishing a more formal multi-national mutual security architecture along the lines of NATO.

That’s not an unprecedented idea. In the 1950s, the U.S. supported the Central Treaty Organization, organizing the “Northern-Tier” (including Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan) as part of a containment strategy against the Soviet Union.

The proposal floundered, argues Michael Doran in his excellent book, “Ike’s Gamble: America’s Rise to Dominance in the Middle East” (2016), because the U.S. failed to understand the internal dynamics of the region. Successful security alliances require a common threat, but that is not enough to build and keep a coalition together.

Alliances endure because of common interests.

>>> New Turmoil in Middle East Makes Sisi-Trump Ties Even More Important

Conflicting concerns have always stymied efforts to build coalitions in the Middle East. The Gulf Cooperation Council, for example, has flirted with military cooperation, but it has never amounted to anything serious.

The U.S. was successful in knitting together an Arab coalition force for the first Gulf War, but it was a temporary effort designed for a specific mission. It did not endure past the war.

“Frankly, there is too much distrust and suspicion between the regional countries for this to ever be effective,” argues Heritage Foundation scholar Luke Coffey. “The best way for the U.S. to enhance regional defense capabilities is through deepening bilateral relations with key countries.”

Yet, even if such an alliance never comes to fruition, there could be value in even suggesting the idea.

Uniformly, the Arab states and Israel are both anxious for the U.S. to r-engage in the region and help deal with the twin dangers of Iran and ISIS/al-Qaeda.

“Any further inter-Arab security and defense cooperation is very welcome as another way to put pressure on Iran,” argues Heritage Foundation regional security expert Jim Phillips, “but the White House needs to manage expectations with this.”

A formal alliance is unlikely to be quickly accomplished and could amount to little of practical value.

Moreover, even if such a treaty organization is even contemplated, it should not—and really cannot—be a substitute for the important bilateral relations that the U.S. currently enjoys with the countries in the greater Middle East.

A treaty organization might make sense as a mere suggestion to help shock the region into believing that the U.S. really is back as a balancing force to help quell the currently spiraling chaos in the region.

On the other hand, the U.S. should not over-invest in the effort at the expense of assembling the coalition it needs right now to undertake pressing and immediate tasks.

These urgent tasks include finishing the destruction of the ISIS caliphate, stabilizing the refugee populations, dealing with the counterterrorism threats from ISIS 2.0 that will likely persist in the region, preventing Somalia, Libya, and Yemen from becoming substantial bases of transnational terrorism, and diminishing Iran’s destructive influence in the region.

These tasks will require a comprehensive American-led effort of military, diplomatic, and assistance and engagement measures. They are tasks that cannot wait for a formal alliance structure to be established—if one ever actually does materialize. (For more from the author of “What a Middle Eastern NATO Could Accomplish for Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Expected to Propose Plan to Balance Budget in 10 Years

President Donald Trump likely will propose a plan next week calling for a balanced budget in 10 years, fiscal experts predict. It also will address how to fund the border wall, higher defense spending, and other Trump initiatives over the next decade.

“Many Republicans have been calling for a 10-year balanced budget,” Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, told The Daily Signal. “One way they may show savings for that 10-year period is through management and downsizing reform efforts.”

Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, took an initial step last month in rolling out government reforms that the administration intends to expand on later this year.

A budget proposal that allows a president to demonstrate how committed he is to campaign pledges and gives a glimpse of plans to make $54 billion in cuts to foreign aid and nondefense discretionary spending is a good sign, Edwards said.

“One role of a federal budget proposal is for the president to create a bully pulpit to argue for cuts,” Edwards said. “Even if Congress doesn’t go along with phasing out things such as NPR [National Public Radio] and PBS [Public Broadcasting Service] this year, proposing this creates a needed national discussion.”

A balanced budget plan would be a significant departure from the previous administration. A major Republican criticism of President Barack Obama was that he never proposed a single balanced budget plan during his eight years in office.

Still, without entitlement reforms and with projected increases for infrastructure spending, projecting a balanced budget in 10 years would be based on very optimistic economic assumptions, said Romina Boccia, deputy director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

“If the OMB numbers are higher than what the [Congressional Budget Office] and nonpartisan assessments are reflecting, it might be questionable. Balancing in 10 years relies heavily on economic growth,” Boccia told The Daily Signal.

Trump and Mulvaney have said their goal is for the United States to surpass 3 percent annual growth again.

Mulvaney, who announced the budget would be released Tuesday, is set to address a hearing of the House Budget Committee on Wednesday. The Senate Budget Committee calendar doesn’t yet include Mulvaney.

An OMB spokesperson told The Daily Signal that the office is still working on the rollout and would have details later.

The White House released a budget blueprint in March that focused only on the fiscal year 2018 budget. But next week, the fiscal plan will project out for the next decade.

The fiscal 2018 plan addressed only discretionary spending. The proposal to be released Tuesday will look at the other two-thirds of the budget, which is mandatory spending and mostly goes to entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

Both Edwards and Boccia anticipate that the proposal will address fraud in the Medicaid and Social Security disability programs.

Among details the public will learn more about:

The 10-year budget will provide a better idea of how Trump plans to pay for the wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. The fiscal 2018 blueprint calls for a down payment of $1.5 billion.

The fiscal 2018 proposal included a $54 billion increase in the military budget, to $603 billion, offset by cuts to foreign aid. Next week’s plan will show how much military spending would grow over 10 years.

The plan reportedly aims to invest in school choice programs and scale back funding for public schools.
The president’s budget proposal is largely a vision statement, Boccia said.

Lawmakers on the House and Senate budget committees likely will be eager to see how proposals for tax reform and reorganizing the government will affect future years, and how that in turn affects budget negotiations, she added. (For more from the author of “Trump Expected to Propose Plan to Balance Budget in 10 Years” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Chronic Illness Is an Epidemic in America. This Senate Bill Will Help Address It.

Americans today are facing an epidemic of chronic illness, including arthritis, diabetes, and heart disease. In fact, chronic illness is now the biggest single driver of medical costs.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that chronic diseases are the leading cause of death and disability in America. As of 2012, the last time the agency collected data, approximately 117 million U.S. adults had one or more chronic health conditions.

The challenge of effectively caring for the growing numbers of Americans suffering with these conditions, particularly as they age into retirement, is enormous.

That is why Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; and Mark Warner, D-Va., have come together to address the problem.

For two years, they have closely studied the impact of the chronic illness problem, particularly as it relates to Medicare, the health program for America’s senior and disabled citizens.

Medicare is facing significant challenges from cost increases related to chronic illnesses, at a time when the program already faces many other challenges.

While a large number of factors contribute to Medicare’s rising costs—including the rapid aging of the population, the expense of newer prescription therapies, as well as the unit costs of increasingly expensive medical treatments and procedures—one cannot overlook the fact that an estimated 68 percent of Medicare recipients suffer with multiple chronic conditions.

Medicare beneficiaries who suffer from chronic illnesses, of course, disproportionately contribute to costly hospital readmissions.

Under Hatch’s leadership, the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday held a mark-up session on S. 870, the Creating High-Quality Results and Outcomes Necessary to Improve Chronic (CHRONIC) Care Act of 2017. The committee approved the bill by a vote of 26-0.

With 17 bipartisan co-sponsors, the bill aims to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to implement Medicare payment policies designed to improve management of chronic disease, streamline care coordination, and improve quality outcomes without adding to the deficit.

The Senate legislation would largely build upon the success of Medicare Advantage, the large and growing system of competing private health plans in the Medicare program.

Today, almost one-third of all enrollees in the Medicare program are enrolled in these private health plans, and that number is projected to grow significantly.

The bill would also extend new care delivery options for the so-called “accountable care organizations” (ACOs) that currently deliver medical care in the traditional Medicare program as well.

Thus far, the ACOs have had a mixed success in delivering cost-effective care in the Medicare program. This legislative effort, focused on chronic illness, may help to improve their performance.

Hatch and his colleagues build on the potential of Medicare Advantage plans to cope with the chronic illness problem because the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does not respond nearly as well to the growing challenge of chronic illness.

Traditional Medicare does not provide the case management and care coordination that is increasingly routine in competing private health plans in the Medicare Advantage program.

Key Objectives

The Senate legislation has several objectives.

First, it would enhance home-based and “team-based” care, particularly for senior and disabled enrollees in the Medicare Advantage “special needs plans.” These special Medicare Advantage plans are already focused on providing care for complex and difficult patient populations.

The bill also expands opportunities for telehealth.

Second, the bill would broaden opportunities for doctors and patients in Medicare Advantage to make use of advancing medical technology and the latest innovations in benefit designs and care delivery models.

For example, the bill would enable Medicare Advantage plans to offer new benefits to chronically ill patients, not as “supplemental” benefits, but as part of their regular benefit offerings.

In short, the bill would give Medicare Advantage plans more flexibility in their benefit design and reimburse them for it.

Third, the bill would amend the law governing ACOs by enabling ACO patients to see any physician of their choice, while allowing ACOs to offer incentives to patients who take advantage of preventative care services.

An Important Step

In the short term, the Senate bill would improve care delivery for the chronically ill.

The potential for improving patient care across the board would be even greater if seniors’ health plans and providers—including traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans, and ACOs—were able to compete on a level playing field where information on medical prices and outcomes was fully available, and where patients exercised direct control over Medicare dollars in a defined contribution (“premium support”) program.

This bill is an important step forward in a process of improving Medicare, especially for those beneficiaries that experience chronic illness. (For more from the author of “Chronic Illness Is an Epidemic in America. This Senate Bill Will Help Address It.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Trump Impeachment Narrative Gets Changed Dramatically When You Consider This One Fact

Months before Donald Trump was even nominated for president at the Republican National Convention, the possibility of impeaching President Trump was already being floated in political circles.

“‘Impeachment’ is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress,” read an April 2016 Politico piece, titled, “Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office?”

“They’ll be talking impeachment on day two, after the first Trump executive order,” conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh predicted a month before the Politico piece. “You might finally get to see unified opposition to the guy.”

“The only way Obama has gotten away with all this authoritarian executive order stuff is the Republican Party hasn’t stopped him. You want to see an opposition party in action, take a look at Democrats down the road,” he added.

Rush reiterated that prediction less than a week before the election. “I think one of the plans the Never Trumpers have if he wins is to impeach him,” the radio host said.

A day before the election, researchers with the University of Utah made the legal case for impeaching Trump if he won the election. The researchers claimed Trump could be charged with fraud or racketeering, both of which are felonies. (Read more from “The Trump Impeachment Narrative Gets Changed Dramatically When You Consider This One Fact” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former DOJ Spox: Comey Is Trying to Take Down Trump

Former FBI Director James Comey may have been building a legal case against President Donald Trump well before the president fired him on May 9, according to a former Department of Justice (DOJ) spokesperson.

Matthew Miller, who served as the DOJ’s Director of the Office of Public Affairs under former Attorney General Eric Holder, suggested that Comey may have been building an obstruction of justice case against the president, in an interview with the Washington Post.

Miller’s suggestion carries weight not just because of his extensive background at DOJ and in government, but also because he predicted that Comey left a paper trail of his interactions with Trump. Miller sent the following tweet five days before the New York Times reported that Comey wrote a memo indicating the president had asked him to end an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

While Miller said it is standard practice for an FBI director to record potentially inappropriate conversations and behavior, Comey could have taken a different approach when speaking with the president.

“I keep wondering, something in the back of my head keeps saying to me, maybe Comey was actually trying to build an obstruction-of-justice case against the president here,” Miller told WaPo. (Read more from “Former DOJ Spox: Comey Is Trying to Take Down Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

White House Staff Around Trump STILL Don’t Get Islamic Threat

Well, it appears that another campaign promise bit the dust. The Jerusalem embassy move went the way of repealing Obamacare, rescinding Obama’s amnesty, building the wall, undoing the Paris climate accord and Iran nuclear deal, and protecting religious liberty. All for the purpose of preserving the PLO peace process — because nothing says “drain the swamp,” understanding Islam, and “America-first” like the Oslo peace process.

The collapse of this White House administration’s foreign policy under the leadership of National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster stems from one source: the refusal to recognize the insufferable nature of unreformed Islam.

Throughout the presidential election, both President Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, consistently hit Obama and Hillary for refusing to even name the enemy and recognize its threat doctrine. After all, if you refuse to identify who the enemy is, how can you place our soldiers in harm’s way, craft diplomatic relationships, and strategize any outcome in the Middle East?

Donald Trump clearly recognized this point in a seminal foreign policy speech he delivered on Sept. 7, 2016, when he declared, “We now have an administration, and a former secretary of state, who refuse to say ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism.’”

Promising a realist approach recognizing the Middle East and Islam as it exists — and not as we want it to exist — Trump delivered somewhat of a doctrine that night in Philadelphia, which clearly resonated with many of the voters that propelled him to the Oval Office: “In a Trump administration, our actions in the Middle East will be tempered by realism. The current strategy of toppling regimes, with no plan for what to do the day after, only produces power vacuums that are filled by terrorists.”

Trump further promised that a new moral clarity will help us “make new friends, rebuild old alliances, and bring new allies into the fold.”

The recognition that radical Islamists are the source of the problem is what dictates immigration policy, decisions over military action, the so-called “Israeli-Palestinian” conflicts, and our views toward Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim Brotherhood. The expectation of many supporters of this president were that he’d move us in the opposite direction of the Obama administration on all aforementioned fronts.

In comes H.R. McMaster, who refuses to even recognize the enemy by adamantly declining to even talk about radical Islamic terrorism, which in itself, “terrorism” is somewhat of a euphemism for the problems endemic in sharia-adherence. Everything else has gone downhill from there, and it was on full display Tuesday.

The consequences of willful blindness on the Islamic threat is the source of McMaster’s desire to get us further entrenched in Syria and Afghanistan, bring in more refugees, kowtow to the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey, and throw Israel under the bus. After all, if we are walking on eggshells in the Arab world with our troops strung out precariously throughout the various theaters refereeing Islamic civil wars, we wouldn’t want our support for Israel to harm them.

Consider the following observations:

Throwing Israel under the bus: Both McMaster and White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer refused to affirm that even the Western Wall is part of Israel. This echoes Obama’s policies and comes on the heels of the White House refusing to allow Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to appear with the president at the Western Wall. It further accentuates the growing push within the administration to embrace the PLO. It doesn’t help that the intel Trump leaked to Russian officials was reportedly from Israeli intelligence services.

Embracing Erdogan: In another throwback to Obama’s policies – embracing enemies and alienating allies – Trump hosted Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. This man is an Islamo-fascist and the Sunni equivalent of the Iranian Mullahs. He stands at the nexus of Sunni Islamic supremacism and is an enemy of the American people. Yet, he has been allowed to fund the construction of the largest Islamic Center in the country just outside Washington, D.C. Rep. David Brat, R-Va., has a bill (H.R. 5824) that would prohibit a foreign national of a country that limits the free exercise of religion in that country from making any expenditure in the U.S. promoting a religion. Yet, I doubt Trump’s meeting was about that.

Meanwhile, Erdogan’s bodyguards beat anti-Erdogan protesters outside of the ambassador’s D.C. home … on American soil!

Further involvement in Afghanistan: There is growing momentum within the administration for McMaster’s plan to further entrench us in the Afghanistan quagmire by sending more troops. The 15 years of utter failure in Afghanistan is not President Trump’s fault. But if he doubles down on the failed strategy without either forging a new path or getting out, he will own it just as much. McMaster is continuing the strategy of “placing our brave soldiers into an Islamic civil war first, ask questions about national security interests and strategy later.”

The question is how can we get our soldiers further involved when we don’t even understand the threat doctrine of the enemy?We have nothing to show for our efforts but over 1,800 military deaths, 20,000 wounded, and the Taliban controlling more territory than ever before – all to establish a sharia-compliant government with a constitution (set up by U.S. officials) which fosters the type of Islamic supremacism we are at war with. If this White House administration is going to saddle up to Erdogan and the PLO, why exactly would we send our troops into another Islamic theater to fight for … what?

According to the recent “Worldwide Threat Assessment” presented to the Senate by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, the “situation in Afghanistan will very likely continue to deteriorate, even if international support is sustained.” The report further notes that “Kabul’spolitical dysfunction and ineffectiveness will almost certainly be the greatest vulnerability to stability in 2017.” Thus, even if we temporarily beat back the Taliban, for whom will we hold the ground without the need for a substantial troops presence forever?

This Trump administration’s Middle East policy will never succeed until it speaks with one clear voice and identifies the nature of our enemy. That will not happen until H.R. McMaster, Dina Powell, Jared and Ivanka Trump are kept out of the decision-making process. (For more from the author of “White House Staff Around Trump STILL Don’t Get Islamic Threat” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sheriff David Clarke Says He’s Accepted DHS Job

Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee County, Wis., said Wednesday he has accepted a job in the Department of Homeland Security.

Clarke told conservative radio host Vicki McKenna during an interview on 1130 WISN that he will leave his post as sheriff to serve as a deputy secretary of Homeland Security.

“I’m both honored and humbled to be appointed to this position by Secretary Kelly, working for the Trump administration,” he said during the radio show.

Clarke said he will leave his position as sheriff in June to work in the Office of Partnership and Programs as a liaison with state, local and tribal law enforcement.

While the DHS did not confirm Clarke’s reported role, it did note the position in question does not require Senate confirmation. (Read more from “Sheriff David Clarke Says He’s Accepted DHS Job” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Rage at Rubio’s Bible Tweets: More Evidence of Troubling Bias Against Christians

Imagine if some Muslim member of Congress went on Twitter to share some harmless verses from the Quran — from the “happy parts” composed early on in Muhammad’s life, where he calls for peace and mercy.

Or if a Jewish member of Congress plucked some uplifting phrases out of the Talmud.

Or if a Californian member of Congress had offered something from the Dalai Lama.

Would it cause a controversy? I certainly hope not. I’d be especially troubled if Christian journalists raised a ruckus. If they pretended that a legislator doing this on his own Twitter account was a threat to American Christians, I’d consider those journalists idiots or bigots. They’d recall the classic character Gob Bluth on Arrested Development, who heckled a harmless student from India, with “Go home, you terrorist!”

But Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post, and a number of other journalists, have apparently taken Gob Bluth as a role model. They’ve responded with shock and outrage to the following: Yesterday morning Catholic U.S. Senator Marco Rubio posted some phrases from the Bible on Twitter. (In fact, they were from the readings at the day’s daily Mass.) Here’s one:

Pretty ominous, huh? As if that weren’t enough, Sen. Rubio next went full-on Old Testament, posting these blood and thunder lines from Proverbs:

Isn’t your skin just crawling? What kind of moral monster would use his prestige as a U.S. legislator to share sentiments like that? Surely, this is the camel’s nose poking under the tent, making way for a full-on Christian theocracy, just like we saw on Netflix in The Handmaid’s Tale.

The Palm Beach Post helpfully compiled reactions which were almost that hysterical. Here’s The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin:

Esquire politics blogger Charles P. Pierce’s response was even more … fragile:

Leah McElrath writes for leftwing website Shareblue — and pledges in her Twitter profile to “#RESIST Trump, GOP, & global rise of white nationalist authoritarianism.” McElrath found Rubio’s Bible Tweets a positively creepy:

Normally I’d just shrug this off as part of the ordinary friction that comes in a free society when people of different views and beliefs rub up against each other. Sen. Rubio himself, apparently bemused, took to retweeting these crackpot reactions himself, without comment. A canny reaction.

Christians Need Not Apply

But put this in context. For centuries, American Christians were a vast and highly tolerant majority. Now the tenor of culture and laws has changed so drastically, that we are becoming an unpopular minority. Perhaps one not to be tolerated.

We got that message from the campaign of destruction launched against President Trump’s appointee for Army Secretary Mark Green. Green was forced to withdraw after Democrats denounced him as a hatemonger. What had Green said that outraged them?

He took the 6,000-year-old Jewish and Christian position on marriage: that it’s between a man and a woman.

Green stated the simple fact that gender dysphoria (transgenderism) is a mental disorder.

He characterized the Muslim horde that invaded, raped, and pillaged Constantinople in 1453 as a “Muslim horde.” (Maybe he should have been more tactful, and called them a “flow of immigrants.”)

Those positions made him unfit for public office in 2017 America. It’s the same America where the Governor of New Jersey just refused to ban child marriages out of respect for Islam, but Christian bakers and florists are force to service same-sex weddings. The same America where worried conservative Christians gave Donald Trump almost 80 percent of their votes … and couldn’t even get him to overturn Obama’s executive orders targeting them. Where Christian schools have to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to get public funds for playground safety. But public universities like U.C. Berkeley spend millions building “genderless” locker rooms to cater to the tragic pathologies of “transgender” students.

That’s how weak and vulnerable we have become. We don’t have the clout of the transgender lobby.

Scapegoating the Once Powerful

There’s no group that’s easier to get away with hating than one that was once quite powerful, which loses its grip. Think of the fate of noblemen in France after 1789, priests in Russia after 1917, or once-elite Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994.

In cases like those, people in the newly powerful group can indulge in open hatred for members of the now-dethroned minority. They can hide it behind past “abuses” (real or imagined). They can target innocent people, whip up resentment, encourage discrimination, even get the government to persecute helpless people — whose crime is that they belong to the group that fell from power.

This scapegoating has nothing to do with justice. Instead it’s a naked exercise in bullying. (For more from the author of “Rage at Rubio’s Bible Tweets: More Evidence of Troubling Bias Against Christians” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Brain Damage Increases Religious Fundamentalism — or Scientific Arrogance?

You didn’t hear it coming. You didn’t even feel it. Yet there you were on Hamburger Hill, May 12, 1969, praying you’d come through the battle, when a piece of shrapnel dug into your skull.

It’s still there today. Doctors couldn’t, didn’t dare, take it out. Maybe it doesn’t hurt; the doctors said it shouldn’t. But you swear you can feel it in there.

Suppose this wounded Vietnam veteran was you, dear reader. Now I ask you the obvious questions: How does this make you feel? Would this injury — just perhaps — lead you to deepen your religious faith?

If you answered that question — no matter how you answered it — you’re one up on five scientists. Wanting Zhong, Irene Cristofori, and three others studied the religious views of Vietnam vets with brain injuries, and published the results in a peer-reviewed journal. These scientists thought brain injuries caused vets to become more religious. Not, they surmised, because life-threatening experiences might lead some folks to become more religious. No, the scientists thought the injuries themselves caused the vet’s brains to, in effect, misfire and induce these men to become more “fundamentalist” in their religious beliefs.

What’s this about religion? The authors say, “Religious beliefs are socially transmitted mental representations that may include supernatural or supernormal episodes that are assumed to be real.” That they might be real did not enter the authors’ minds. Never mind. The real object is religious fundamentalism, which they say “embodies adherence to a set of firm religious beliefs advocating unassailable truths about human existence.” Unassailable truths like the scientific method?

“Fundamentalism requires a departure from ordinary empirical inquiry: it reflects a rigid cognitive strategy that fixes beliefs and amplifies within-group commitment and out-group bias.” If that’s not bad enough, “Recent studies have linked religious fundamentalism to violence [and] denial of scientific progress.”

These authors assume that the brain causes religious fundamentalism. “Evolutionary psychology explains the appeal of religious fundamentalism in terms of social functional behavior,” they say. Yet the “neurological systems that enable such inflexible, non-disastrous beliefs [such as fundamentalism] remain poorly understood.” So they studied it.

But if the Brain Can’t Be Trusted …

But if evolution made the brain cause religious belief, did evolution cause the authors’ brains to believe religion can be explained by the brain? What part of the brain is responsible for bad science?

It is an old argument, but a good one: If the brain causes our thoughts, then it cannot be trusted. For what guarantee is there that if it misleads us in one area it’s not misleading us in another? There is none. If the brain causes false religious beliefs, it could also cause false science beliefs. And there’s no way to tell the difference.

Now to assess “fundamentalism” our authors asked a few questions to an even smaller group of men. Some of these men had brain injuries and some not. The main concern was with 24 men with ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) injuries and about the same number of men with two other injury types. These were compared against 30 other men with no brain injuries.

Bad Theology

One of the questions was agreement with this claim: “The basic cause of evil in this world is Satan, who is still constantly and ferociously fighting against God.” This, like the other questions, makes little theological sense. You can imagine a devout Christian, who knows that human beings cause of a lot of evil, trying to answer it. The authors of the paper seem to think “the devil made me do it” is the basic way Christians explain their sins.

Still, analyzing the answers led the authors to say that they “found that participants with vmPFC lesions reported greater fundamentalism” than controls.

Bad Stats

But this just is not so. By their own data, the person with the lowest “fundamentalism” had a vmPFC lesion. And a goodly fraction of those with lesions had lower “fundamentalism” scores than did those in the healthy control group. Only two of the 24 veterans with lesions had higher scores than did the highest healthy controls. The variability of scores is high. That’s why the differences in “fundamentalism” scores claimed were small.

As it happens, the vets with injuries “consisted of 2.5% Mormons, 38.8% Protestant, 16.3% Roman Catholic, 10% other affiliations.” 32.5% did not respond. The healthy vets “consisted of 35.3% Protestant, 23.5% Roman Catholic” with 41.2% not responding.

Since there is a lot of variety in views among these groups, the imbalances in group membership are enough to explain the observed differences in “fundamentalism.” It’s odd the authors did not analyze “fundamentalism” by self-reported denomination to answer this obvious criticism.

What’s most disturbing is that they took the result of this tiny group and implicitly extrapolated it to the whole human race (at the end they do admit “larger…samples…are necessary to confirm that our conclusions are applicable to healthy individuals”, but they wave these doubts away throughout the paper and speak of religious beliefs in general). In other words, they used a rude statistical analysis with not even a hint that their results are far, far from certain.

Still, one of the authors was bold enough to insist that “the variation in the nature of religious beliefs are governed by specific brain areas in the anterior parts of the human brain and those brain areas are among the most recently evolved areas of the human brain.”

Which part of the brain caused this man’s over-confidence? (For more from the author of “Brain Damage Increases Religious Fundamentalism — or Scientific Arrogance?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.