The Major Entitlement Overhaul That Could Be Part of Trump’s Budget

President Donald Trump’s budget proposal, to be rolled out Tuesday, likely will include Medicaid reform. But with several approaches having been floated, definitive answers will have to wait until the White House releases the fiscal plan.

During his Senate confirmation hearings in January, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said he would look at changes to Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor.

Medicaid covers about 70 million low-income Americans. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia expanded eligibility for Medicaid under Obamacare.

When serving as House Budget Committee chairman as a congressman from Georgia, Price advocated giving Medicaid funds to states in block grants as a way of providing more flexibility.

“Block grants would save the federal government money, but would shift that cost to the states,” Marc Goldwein, senior vice president for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan research group in Washington, told The Daily Signal. “When a state has more skin in the game, will it be more cost-effective? Yes. But perhaps not enough to deal with the new expense.”

Another solution, Goldwein said, is to cap “provider taxes,” which states impose on health care providers. He said states use the tax to get more money from the federal government without losing revenue. The federal government prevents states from taxing health providers more than 6 percent.

He said most states make deals with hospitals to increase Medicaid payments in exchange for taxing the hospital by the same amount, then go to the federal government presenting a need for a larger subsidy based on the larger payment from the state to the hospitals.

“If you phased [the state provider taxes on hospitals] out to 0 percent, it would save $100 billion” on Medicaid, Goldwein said. “If you cut to 5.5 percent, it would save about $10 billion.”

Fiscal hawks long have argued that the federal government’s main entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—are the key drivers of the national debt and deficit spending.

In March, four Republican governors—John Kasich of Ohio, Rick Snyder of Michigan, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, and Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas—touted their own proposal to reform Medicaid.

In a letter to Congress, the four governors said any reform should have work requirements, allow options on eligibility and what drugs are covered, and continue to allow the Medicaid expansion that occurred under Obamacare.

A better solution would be for the government to provide premium supports to encourage people to move on to private health insurance plans, said Robert Moffitt, senior fellow for health policy at The Heritage Foundation.

“Able-bodied Medicaid recipients, we’re not talking about someone who is disabled or in a nursing home, could receive a defined premium support to be mainstreamed into private insurance,” Moffit told The Daily Signal.

This would accomplish two things—reducing spending and helping patients, he said:

This Medicaid population would then have access to more doctors, since most doctors take private insurance and fewer are taking Medicaid. This population is also relative younger, which usually has a positive impact on the insurance pool. That could drive down cost for the rest of the American population.

Government data found 11.5 million able-bodied adults were on Medicaid.

In their recently passed American Health Care Act, House Republicans adopted a Heritage Foundation policy proposal that would change Medicaid to a per capita cap on funding for states that would be limited to medical inflation plus 1 percent.

Medicaid recipients’ access to doctors has become more limited, according to a study last year that found 1 in 3 available physicians don’t see Medicaid patients.

The White House Office of Management and Budget did not respond to email inquiries Friday from The Daily Signal about whether, and which, Medicaid reforms would be part of the budget proposal.

“I assume the reform will probably be tied to the House Budget Committee, and would propose to block-grant Medicaid, as the House Republican budget has proposed for years,” Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, told The Daily Signal.

Edwards said he also anticipates the Trump administration will go after waste, fraud, and abuse for all entitlements, including Social Security and Medicare. Doing so could save tens of billions of dollars, but still make only a little dent in budget deficits or the debt.

A report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, released Friday, dismissed tackling waste as a long-term solution. The report by the private group says:

Importantly, there is no way to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid even close to sustainable simply by reducing fraud. However, broadly defined program integrity—for example, reducing excessive provider payments and using competition or negotiation to get better prices in Medicare, restricting the ability of states to inflate their federal match in Medicaid, or encouraging and helping workers with disabilities return to work in Social Security—can represent a starting point for entitlement reform. Still, it would be impossible to fix Social Security and Medicare solely through program integrity—even using a broad definition—and, ultimately, tough choices will need to be made to bring the costs of these programs under control.

Of the three main entitlements, Medicaid is the most sustainable, Moffit said.

“You can’t get control of federal debt and deficits unless you address Social Security and Medicare,” Moffit said. “Otherwise, it’s just not going to happen.” (For more from the author of “The Major Entitlement Overhaul That Could Be Part of Trump’s Budget” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Calls for Middle East to ‘Take the Lead’ in Fighting Terrorism

Near the birthplace of Islam, President Donald Trump called for an alliance of Muslim-Arab nations to combat Islamic terrorism in his first major international address.

“Our goal is a coalition of nations who share the aim of stamping out extremism and providing our children a hopeful future that does honor to God,” Trump said in speaking to the Arab-Islamic-American Summit in Riyadh.

Trump, who spoke for about 35 minutes to more than 50 leaders of Muslim-majority countries, also announced many Middle Eastern countries were signing an agreement to prevent terrorism financing by establishing the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center, co-chaired by the United States and Saudi Arabia. Trump also participated in the opening of the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology in Riyadh.

Trump talked about the 9/11 attacks and the Boston bombing in the United States, and noted terrorist attacks across the world. He said some estimates show 95 percent of victims of terrorism are Muslims.

“In sheer numbers, the deadliest toll has been exacted on the innocent people of Arab, Muslim, and Middle Eastern nations,” Trump said. “They have borne the brunt of the killings and the worst of the destruction in this wave of fanatical violence.”

In a departure of sorts from both previous administrations, Trump struck a noninterventionist tone, asserting the U.S. does not want to “lecture” Middle Eastern countries, but he also called for the countries of the region to “take the lead” in fighting terrorism.

Trump didn’t use the term “radical Islam,” which he criticized the Obama administration for not using, but he clearly identified Islamic terrorism.

“There is still much work to be done. That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamists and the Islamic terror of all kinds. We must stop what they are doing to inspire, because they do nothing to inspire but kill, and we are having a very profound effect if you look at what has happened recently,” Trump said. “It means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.”

Saudi Arabia was the first stop in Trump’s first international trip that will include a stop in Israel, at the Vatican in Rome—covering the three major religions of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Afterward, Trump will meet with European allies at Group of Seven and NATO gatherings.

Trump seemed to have a very cordial meeting with Saudi King Salman, and the two nations struck an arms deal. Before Trump spoke, Salman said his nation is committed to combating terrorism regardless of religion or sect. He also reiterated that Islam was a religion of peace and criticized Iran.

Trump also criticized Iran for providing “safe harbor, financial backing, social standing for recruitment.” President Barack Obama’s administration led a multilateral nuclear deal with Iranian regime, but during the speech, Trump called for peaceful nations to “isolate” Iran.

Trump talked about “principled realism,” seemingly referencing the strong interventionist policy of the previous Republican administration, which he criticized during his campaign.

“We are not here to lecture—we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership—based on shared interests and values—to pursue a better future for us all,” Trump said.

“We will make decisions based on real-world outcomes—not inflexible ideology,” he continued. “We will be guided by the lessons of experience, not the confines of rigid thinking and, wherever possible, we will seek gradual reforms—not sudden intervention. We must seek partners, not perfection and to make allies of all who share our goals.”

But, the president stressed the Arab world must take ownership of the region, as he added:

Terrorism has spread across the world. But the path to peace begins right here, on this ancient soil, in this sacred land. America is prepared to stand with you—in pursuit of shared interests and common security … But the nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them. The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their countries, and for their children.

Trump stressed the clash was not between faiths.

“Every time a terrorist murders an innocent person, and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith,” Trump said.

He added it is a “battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions.”

“This is a battle between good and evil,” he added.

“Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: Barbarism will deliver you no glory—piety to evil will bring you no dignity,” Trump said. “If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and your soul will be condemned.”

Trump also spoke about how driving out terrorist can restore the Middle East to greatness of its past.

The true toll of ISIS, if you look at what is happening, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and so many others, must be counted not only in the number of dead, it also must be counted in the generations of vanished dreams. The Middle East is rich with natural beauty, lively cultures, and massive amounts of historic treasures. It should increasingly become one of the great global centers of commerce and opportunity. This region should not be a place from which refugees flee, but to which newcomers flock.

(For more from the author of “Trump Calls for Middle East to ‘Take the Lead’ in Fighting Terrorism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Iran Re-Elects Rouhani as President

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani won a second term in office on Friday, securing about 57 percent of the votes cast in Iran’s carefully vetted and stage-managed presidential election.

Rouhani, a pragmatic hardliner often mistakenly described as a “moderate” by western media, outpolled a field of rival candidates that included Ebrahim Raisi, an ultra-hardline protégé of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader.

The election will change little in Iran. In Iran’s theocratic political system, elections advance the interests of mullahcracy, not democracy.

Iran’s clerical rulers claim legitimacy by purporting to be carrying out the will of God, not the will of the people.

Unlike in the U.S., Iran’s president is a political figurehead with very limited powers and responsibilities.

Iran’s Supreme leader is the ultimate arbiter of the important issues, particularly those the United States is most concerned about: Iran’s nuclear program, its ballistic missile force, its export of terrorism, and its efforts to export its revolution to Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other places.

As the leader of Iran’s Islamic revolution, the Supreme Leader controls the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?the cutting edge of the regime?which suppresses political opposition, protects the regime at home and abroad, controls Iran’s ballistic missile force as well as covert nuclear efforts, and orchestrates Iran’s support for terrorist groups.

Iran’s theocratic dictatorship has constructed a façade of democracy to mask the fact that real power always has been wielded by unelected clerical leaders. It is the ayatollahs, after all, who approve which candidates are allowed to run for president.

This year, more than 1,600 male candidates announced plans to run for the presidency (women cannot run), but only six were approved by the Guardian Council, an Orwellian body that certifies that candidates reliably support the radical goals of Iran’s Islamic revolution.

The political process amounts to more of a selection than an election. The political campaign provides something of a barometer for measuring popular opinion, but it is still a small, self-perpetuating clerical elite that makes the critical decisions.

This year’s campaign focused primarily on economic issues. Many Iranians were disappointed when the lifting of economic sanctions as part of the 2015 nuclear deal did not trickle down to improve their lives—something Rouhani had promised.

This didn’t happen, in part was because Iran’s biggest trade deals were designed to benefit state-controlled industries and firms affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, who control a large chunk of the Iranian economy.

Moreover, low oil prices have depressed Iran’s oil export revenues, which are the backbone of its economy.

The regime has exacerbated the situation by funneling many of the economic dividends provided by sanctions relief into a military buildup and an increasingly costly military intervention in Syria to prop up the brutal Assad regime.

Rouhani has little control over those decisions, which are made by Ayatollah Khamenei.

In reality, Iran’s election on Friday was a charade. All it did was re-select Rouhani as president—a president in name only.

Under Iran’s revolutionary political system, Ayatollah Khamenei, the leader of the revolution, greatly outranks the leader of the Iranian state.

Khamenei, who has ruled Iran since 1989, reportedly has suffered from prostate cancer in recent years. The selection of his successor will have a greater impact on Iran’s future than the selection of any president. (For more from the author of “Iran Re-Elects Rouhani as President” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What’s at Stake in the Left’s Effort to Redefine ‘Sex’ in Pennsylvania Law

State capitals across the country are proving they are not immune to the malady that has afflicted the policy process in Washington.

The latest case in point: Pennsylvania.

In a quietly released statement issued late on a Friday afternoon, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, an agency of the state government, announced a proposal to effectively redefine the word “sex” in the state’s discrimination law to also include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” or “SOGI” for short.

This proposal wouldn’t change the law—only the commission’s “guidance” on the matter. But this new “guidance” would mean the law would be enforced as if it had changed.

This guidance comes on the heels of repeated failures to accomplish the same outcome through the legitimate way of changing laws—through the legislative process and with the consent of the governed.

It is a move that mimics the Obama administration’s executive and bureaucratic overreaches when Congress rejected LGBT demands for changes in federal law. It also represents a serious usurpation of legislative authority and an end run around our political system.

First, a little background and some history.

For more than a decade, LGBT activists have sought to add sexual orientation and gender identity language to Pennsylvania’s anti-discrimination statute. This has become one of the most hardly fought social policy efforts of the left.

Pennsylvania is certainly not unique in receiving such challenges from the social left.

It is notable, however, that Pennsylvania citizens have repeatedly been successful in stopping these proposals in the Legislature when most of the states in the northeast have not.

There are several reasons for this:

History

This diverse context has created higher sensitivity to laws that would police and sanction beliefs. Simply put, Pennsylvanians value tolerance.

Pennsylvania has a long history of tolerance, religious freedom, and protecting the rights of conscience. That heritage has drawn to the state a citizenry that represents a broad array of religious backgrounds and accepts those who are different.

Intolerance in Other States

As has been witnessed in other states, sexual orientation and gender identity laws and regulations have worked against universal tolerance. They have empowered government prosecutors and bureaucrats to force actions and speech that can cause a citizen to violate their conscience and religious convictions.

Just ask Barronelle Stuztman or Melissa Klein. Such coercive and punitive action by government undermines tolerance and only spurs division.

An Affront to Women’s Rights

Examples of this can be found across the country, whether it’s a biologically male adult changing clothes in front of girls in a swim club locker room in Seattle, or teens and children facing similar circumstances in their schools, or female school athletes seeing their opportunities for success evaporate as physical males are being allowed to compete against them.

Sexual orientation and gender identity laws have been used to suggest that restricting bathroom use by biological sex is discriminatory. This has forced policy changes that threaten bathroom personal privacy and, in some cases, safety. The result is often an affront to the rights of women.

These and other concerns, brought to the attention of Pennsylvania lawmakers by their constituents, have thus far succeeded in preventing a statewide adoption of sexual orientation and gender identity legislation.

This despite significant spending by national special interests and the hiring of some of the most powerful lobbyists in Harrisburg to pressure the House and Senate to cave.

That brings us to Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, Tom Wolf.

Wolf, named America’s most liberal governor, instigated a shakeup in the Human Relations Commission by demoting the chairman and installing a new chairman to further his agenda.

Now, in the face of a legislative stalemate, the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission is making an end run around the Legislature to impose a freedom-robbing policy through a bureaucratic agency that was founded to guard our civil liberties.

The Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission’s website, www.phrc.pa.gov, is inviting public comment on the proposed guidance via email to [email protected] through Friday, May 26.

“This change in guidance by the [Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission] effectively means a change in law, a change that would be devastating to personal privacy and religious liberty,” said Randall Wenger, chief counsel of the Independence Law Center.

“That’s why it’s important that lovers of liberty make their voice heard to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission during their public comment period.”

Lovers of the legitimate, constitutional lawmaking process may wish to chime in as well. (For more from the author of “What’s at Stake in the Left’s Effort to Redefine ‘Sex’ in Pennsylvania Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Federal Lawsuit Contends Transgenderism Is a Mental Disorder

A Friday story from Reuters highlights a federal district court’s decision to proceed with a lawsuit from Kate Lynn Blatt – a man who imagines himself a woman – who claims that he has been discriminated against by his employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act because of his condition:

But U.S. District Judge Joseph Leeson avoided ruling on the constitutionality of the ADA, as the plaintiffs had sought, under the legal principle that courts should avoid decisions on constitutional grounds if possible. Being transgender is not considered a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association [APA], but it can give rise to gender dysphoria, a type of anxiety that may require medical treatment. Gender dysphoria forms Blatt’s basis for making a claim under the ADA. Leeson, from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found that simply being transgender would be insufficient to bring a case, but that gender dysphoria was a medical condition worthy of protection against discrimination.

According to an amicus brief from GLAD – a Massachusetts-based LGBT legal nonprofit – the explicit exclusion of “gender identity disorder” language in the 1990 version of the current law constitutes a violation of trans peoples’ constitutional rights. And that the “updated diagnosis of gender dysphoria (GD) in fact falls outside the scope of that exclusion as defined in the law,” implying that the law should be rewritten by judges as medical opinions shift.

This is where the rhetoric around the issue of transgenderism and employment law gets incredibly muddled.

There is currently another case moving through the federal circuit which makes the claim that being transgender should be held on the same grounds as race or sex. The plaintiff Kate Lynn Blatt found some receptive ears in the 7th Circuit, which went so far in its ruling to brazenly admit that it was taking the legislative task of rewriting federal discrimination law, rather than simply applying it, because Congress “may not have realized or understood the full scope of the words it chose” when it passed the law in the first place.

While this case invokes the Americans with Disabilities Act and demands protection under that statutory framework, it has the same end game of other cases that invoke federal civil rights law to claim that being transgender is no different than race or sex.

The American Psychiatric Association claims – at least according to the Reuters report – that gender dysphoria and simply being transgendered are two different things. The assertion, contrasted with the group’s own definition of the disorder, smacks of capriciousness and political correctness.

So the question then becomes whether or not imagining oneself to be a different sex than that of their biological makeup is something innate, or whether it is a mental disorder on the same tier as substance addiction or depression.

It is not something to be indulged. Nobody holds pride parades to celebrate the excesses of alcoholism, and nobody wants to inculcate grade-school children with the idea that the side-effects of schizophrenia are something to be revered and respected.

Nobody tells people with anorexia that they really are the fat person they see in the mirror, that starving themselves to make their body match their delusions is a compassionate response, and that anyone who doesn’t agree is bigoted. Rather, these are things that we view as destructive to the wellbeing of the human person — something to be addressed with charity, mercy, understanding, and, overall, some kind of correctional treatment.

So now there are two competing narratives before our judicial system. Either someone like Blatt is a woman simply because they say they are, or there is indeed a disorder at work that puts the person at odds with reality.

While some highly skilled philosophical contortionist in our court system may indeed find a way to make these two assertions work in tandem, these two assertions cannot coexist in an intellectually honest discussion. Either transgenderism is reality, or it is a disorder; it cannot be both. (For more from the author of “Federal Lawsuit Contends Transgenderism Is a Mental Disorder” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Considers Move to Devastate Obamacare

President Trump is considering a move that could devastate Obamacare and force lawmakers to take action to repeal the law and pass health care reform.

According to Politico, the president wants to end payments of “key Obamacare subsidies,” an action that would cause Obamacare to fall apart. Trump reportedly wants to force congressional Democrats to the negotiating table, but this sort of bold action is unpopular with some in the White House.

Many advisers oppose the move because they worry it will backfire politically if people lose their insurance or see huge premium spikes and blame the White House, the sources said. Trump has said that the bold move could force Congressional Democrats to the table to negotiate an Obamacare replacement.

Lawyers and other administration officials are trying to thread the needle.

These payments to insurance companies are worth an estimated $7 billion for this year alone. The government pays insurance companies to subsidize the cost of insuring low-income individuals. Without those subsidies, the insurance plans with regulations mandated by the government would become too expensive to offer, and insurers would be forced to exit Obamacare’s exchanges at a quicker pace.

Obamacare’s regulations and mandates caused the price of health insurance to skyrocket, making these subsidies a cornerstone of the law’s structure. The true cost of Obamacare has been hidden from the American people, like an open sore under a Band-Aid. Ending these subsidies would rip that Band-Aid off.

According to Politico, no formal decision has been made yet. Will the Washington, D.C., political class talk the president down to save their skins come election season? We’ll find out soon. (For more from the author of “Trump Considers Move to Devastate Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Christian Artists’ Free Speech: Will SCOTUS Take up Vital Issue?

Should artists be forced to promote messages against their conscience? The Supreme Court could be taking up the question soon, if a recent lower-court ruling out of Kentucky is any indication.

Late last week, news broke that the Kentucky Court of Appeals sided with Hands On Originals, a print shop in the Bluegrass State, saying that business owner Blaine Adamson did not have to engage in business that conflicts with his religious beliefs. The ruling comes five years after he told a prospective client that he could not make T-shirts for a gay pride festival in 2012.

The Associated Press has more details:

Chief Judge Joy Kramer wrote in her opinion that the city’s ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation does not prohibit the owners of Hands On Originals from “engaging in viewpoint or message censorship.” Kramer said the business objected to the message of gay pride, not anyone’s sexual orientation.

“Thus, although the menu of services HOO provides to the public is accordingly limited, and censors certain points of view, it is the same limited menu HOO offers to every customer and is not, therefore, prohibited by the fairness ordinance,” the ruling states.

The legal question at hand is one of the biggest religious liberty issues facing the country, as religious business owners have faced a number of struggles following the 2015 “Obergefell v. Hodges” gay marriage decision and a slew of state-level LGBT laws that seek to eliminate traditional beliefs on marriage, biology, and sexuality from the marketplace.

Plaintiffs argue that not creating pro-LGBT messages amounts to class-based discrimination prohibited in federal law. Proponents argue that this is inaccurate and that it constitutes abstaining from an action based on belief – a long-respected protection of the First Amendment.

The Kentucky ruling differs from other recent lower-court rulings on similar questions. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that a Christian florist was not within her rights to decline serving a same-sex wedding ceremony.

Now that the lower courts have split in their opinions, the issue is more appealing for the U.S. Supreme Court, Jim Campbell, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, tells Conservative Review. ADF is the pro-religious liberty legal nonprofit representing Blaine Adamson in Kentucky.

The case to watch now is that of owner Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, Colo. Phillips was recently turned down by the Colorado Supreme Court after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission previously found him guilty of discrimination, but it could very well be on the docket for the next judicial session in D.C.

(As ADF notes, “In contrast to the ruling against Phillips, the commission found last year that three other Denver cake artists were not guilty of creed discrimination when they declined a Christian customer’s request for a cake that reflected his religious opposition to same-sex marriage.”)

“They’re holding [the case] for two months now, which is kind of odd,” Campbell says. “Whenever they’re holding something, it obviously means that it’s caught someone’s attention. Which is a good sign … because the default is to be denied.” He says a decision on the petition could come as soon as Monday.

There are a handful of other cases that all evaluate the intersection of conscience rights, free expression, and non-discrimination that are currently working through the courts. Should the current petition on Masterpiece be denied, these cases will likely continue to work their own ways up in its stead.

But there are still many variables in this equation. Despite the messianic treatment Neil Gorsuch received from many conservatives, and as often as he is used as the go-to counter-example to complaints about Trump’s betrayals on a host of other issues (like immigration and religious liberty), one must remember that there are still eight other justices on the high bench. In replacing Antonin Scalia, the balance of the court was restored to the same makeup that gave the American people decisions like “Obergefell” and “Windsor.”

Hopeful rumors are currently buzzing around the beltway conservative enclaves about the prospect of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement this summer. If true, the vacant seat and nuclear appointment rules would give the Trump administration the ability to tip the balance of the bench in a more originalist direction, which would bode well for any of these cases. But this nothing more than speculation and rumor at this point.

A multitude of factors affect the final outcome. Will the First Amendment be weakened or buttressed in post-Obergefell America? It would appear that the answer will not have to wait very long — at least on judicial time. (For more from the author of “Christian Artists’ Free Speech: Will SCOTUS Take up Vital Issue?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Levin Gets Down to the REAL Crisis Exposed by the Media’s Leaks

Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin has noticed something the mainstream, liberal media seems to be conveniently ignoring.

An exclusive report from Reuters, citing anonymous “U.S. officials,” asserts that the Trump campaign had at least 18 “undisclosed contacts with Russians” during the closing months of the 2016 presidential campaign. Buried six paragraphs down in the report is the admission that there is “no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia” from these leaked communications.

No evidence of wrongdoing by the Trump campaign. That’s because the real wrongdoing is by members of the bureaucracy illegally leaking information to the press — information, Levin points out, that could only come from one place.

Listen:

“The only way that they know this is through the domestic surveillance, oh excuse me, the incidental surveillance information and the unmasking of Flynn, among others,” Levin said. “It’s the only way they know this information that’s being leaked to Reuters.”

“Once again, I bring us back, I pull us back to what the media are exposing but don’t know they’re exposing and don’t want you to believe,” Levin said.

“This is part of the domestic surveillance that took place. This is part of the unmasking of Trump advisers, Trump transition team members, Trump campaign members, American citizens. This is part of the unmasking of American citizens and abuse of power by the prior administration being used and being leaked to the media!” (For more from the author of “Levin Gets Down to the REAL Crisis Exposed by the Media’s Leaks” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

VA Employee Convicted of DUI 3 Times Returns to Work at Memphis Medical Center

An employee at the Memphis, Tenn. Veteran’s Affairs (VA) medical center who was convicted of driving under the influence three times has returned to work as of Monday.

Brittney Lowe, a senior interior designer at the Memphis VA was convicted in 2009, 2013 and most recently in 2017 of driving under the influence and is now back working at the medical center, The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned.

Her most recent conviction took place on March 9, 2017, after which point she served a 60-day sentence.

In March, Memphis VA whistleblower Sean Higgins told Communities Digital News that Lowe was on paid leave during her sentence under the category of “donated leave,” which is usually made available to employees experiencing sickness.

But now that she’s served her 60 days in Jail, Lowe has been spotted back at work. (Read more from “VA Employee Convicted of DUI 3 Times Returns to Work at Memphis Medical Center” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clock Boy Loses yet Another Lawsuit in Battle Against School, Local Officials

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit brought by the family of Ahmed Mohamed — which alleged his high school discriminated against him when officials mistook his homemade clock for a bomb.

The Daily Mail reports the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the Mohamed family’s suit for failing to allege facts showing discriminatory or unconstitutional actions on the part of school administrators or local officials.

“Plaintiff does not allege any facts from which this court can reasonably infer that any IISD employee intentionally discriminated against Ahmed Mohamed based on his race or religion,” court documents read.

The family alleged that school administrators discriminated against Ahmed because of his religion and ethnicity — he is Sudanese and practices Islam. They also claim his detention and interrogation without access to his family or a lawyer violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Mohamed was taken into police custody after he displayed a homemade clock to teachers at MacArthur High School in Irving, Texas. Police and school officials feared the device was a bomb, though they quickly determined the gadget was harmless. (Read more from “Clock Boy Loses yet Another Lawsuit in Battle Against School, Local Officials” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.