Lawmakers Are Using Congressional Review Act to Dismantle Obama Regulations

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the four weeks since President Donald Trump was inaugurated, congressional lawmakers have moved to address some of the 22,700 regulations adopted under President Barack Obama.

“There has not been nearly as much attention paid to this issue as there should have been,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “I think President [Ronald] Reagan focused on this and I think President Trump is focusing more on this issue than any other president since Reagan.”

The tool Congress is using to undo these regulations is known as the Congressional Review Act, which allows it to repeal executive branch regulations.

Three resolutions disapproving of Obama-era regulations have been adopted by both the House and Senate since Trump’s inauguration and 24 more have been introduced in the House, according to James Gattuso, a senior research fellow who studies regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation.

On Wednesday, the Senate adopted a resolution by a margin of 57-43 disapproving a regulation finalized during Obama’s last weeks in office that would “prevent some Americans with disabilities from purchasing or possessing firearms based on their decision to seek Social Security benefits.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a prepared floor statement on Wednesday that this resolution of disapproval included 32 bipartisan co-sponsors in the Senate and was supported by a myriad of civil rights groups and disability organizations.

“Repealing this regulation will ensure that disabled citizens’ Second Amendment rights are protected,” Grassley’s statement said. “Those rights will no longer be able to be revoked without a hearing and without due process. It will take more than the personal opinion of a bureaucrat.”

Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email that “Congress is moving expeditiously to invalidate rules that never should have been adopted.”

“This will lift the burdens felt by the average person from needless rules,” Larkin added.

The Congressional Review Act also prevents agencies from creating similar rules with similar language.

“ … Once Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval and the president signs it into law, the rule is nullified and the agency cannot adopt a ‘substantially similar’ rule absent an intervening act of Congress,” Larkin wrote in a commentary article.

Passed in 1996 in concert with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act and then-Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America reform agenda, the Congressional Review Act, according to the Congressional Research Service, “is an oversight tool that Congress may use to overturn a rule issued by a federal agency.”

Until this year, the Congressional Review Act had been used successfully only once in 2001 to repeal a regulation created during the Clinton administration pertaining to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

However, with a Republican House, Senate, and White House, conservative lawmakers have the votes needed to adopt the joint resolutions of disapproval for each regulation and a president who will sign them.

On Tuesday, Trump signed a resolution reversing “[a] costly regulation that threatened to put domestic extraction companies and their employees at an unfair disadvantage,” according to the Office of the Press Secretary.

Repealing the domestic extraction regulation that Trump signed Tuesday “could save American businesses as much as $600 million annually,” according to the office.

Lee, the Utah senator, said the Congressional Review Act will help reverse the financial burden of regulations.

“During the final months of President Obama’s presidency, during what some refer to as the ‘midnight period,’ unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch were very busy and they issued a flurry of regulations,” Lee said. “ And, it is significant that those regulations will impose … billion[s] [of dollars] … in compliance costs on the American people.”

Rachel Bovard, director of policy services at The Heritage Foundation, said the Congressional Review Act undoes regulations that harm American free enterprise.

“The successful use of the [Congressional Review Act] is not only good for the balance of powers, it’s good for American businesses, our economy, and a positive development for any American seeking to live their life with minimal government intrusion,” Bovard said in an email to The Daily Signal.

Trump is also expected to sign another joint resolution of disapproval, which undoes a rule “that would establish onerous requirements for coal mining operations, and impose significant compliance burdens on America’s coal production.”

Bovard said the Congressional Review Act is the ideal tool to bring accountability back to governing.

“The use of the Congressional Review Act is a welcome act by Congress to assert itself as a co-equal branch of government,” Bovard said. “Unelected bureaucrats should not write laws—and it’s up to Congress, through the use of the CRA, to disprove regulations that were not written as Congress intended.”

Gattuso said the timing for repealing regulations imposed by Obama is ripe for leaders in Congress.

“After 20 years of almost complete disuse, the stars have aligned to make the [Congressional Review Act] the vehicle of choice by members of Congress wanting to roll back recent Obama regulations,” Gattuso said in an email to The Daily Signal. (For more from the author of “Lawmakers Are Using Congressional Review Act to Dismantle Obama Regulations” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Proponents of ‘Diversity’ Tried to Force My Religious Group off Campus

/0 Comments/in , /by

Recent news about U.S. colleges has not been flattering. We’ve seen a tidal wave of stories from campus protests and violent riots, to sexual assault and purported millennial “safe spaces.”

But obscured by the attention-grabbing headlines is the reality that many students are actively engaged in campus communities that foster cultural and intellectual diversity, encourage innovative thinking, and create opportunities for enriching and helping others in their campus communities and around the world.

I know, because that’s part of my story.

As a student at Missouri State University, I was first a member, then a leader, of Chi Alpha—a student Christian organization devoted to supporting students of faith and promoting campus diversity and community service.

As one of the most engaged students on campus, the best part of my college experience was seeing the huge variety of student groups—faith-based or otherwise—working, sometimes together and sometimes independently, to promote and act on shared values that were important to each groups’ members.

More than any class assignment, the interaction with students and interest groups allowed me to see that all groups on campus, even those with diametrically opposing viewpoints, can flourish under the same university banner.

Yet politicians and campus administrators in some states are trying to push certain groups off campus for daring to be distinct. Religious groups that require their student leaders (not general members) to actually believe and uphold the groups’ beliefs and mission are being accused of bigotry and kicked off campus.

In a puzzling irony, this aggressive ideology only sacrifices true campus diversity and academic freedom in the name of ambiguous and subjective political correctness.

My participation and leadership in Chi Alpha showed me the true value of campus diversity. While Chi Alpha is religious in nature, I interacted and became friends with students who chose to be a part of Chi Alpha for a safe and uplifting social environment.

Some joined Chi Alpha to participate in our shared ethos of community service and humanitarian efforts, like our partnership with feedONE, feeding starving children worldwide. Other students valued our work promoting campus diversity.

I personally led multiple service trips, like taking Chi Alpha students to work with the homeless in Milwaukee, the widowed and orphaned on a New Mexico Navajo reservation, and neglected elementary school children in Kenya.

For all of us, our shared Christian faith fostered a commitment to each other and to caring for others no matter who they are or where they come from.

Schools Are Squelching, Not Empowering, Student Choice

Whether motivated by faith or not, all students should be free to join their own groups to express shared values. But faith-based groups are especially being targeted. Two recent examples come to mind.

Just last year at Southeast Missouri State University, virtually every religious student group on campus was discriminated against because the groups required their leaders to share their faith (to essentially practice what they preach) while other campus groups like fraternities and sororities were allowed to continue selecting both leaders and members based on the groups’ mission or purpose.

Only after months of lobbying (and months of academic distractions) were religious students at the university able to regain equality with the other campus groups.

And two years ago, my fellow Chi Alpha student leader, Bianca Travis, had her entire Chi Alpha chapter a California State University campus.

Despite 40 years of service within the Cal State community, including assisting the school with international students, helping campus police hand out free water during major student activities, and fundraising to address issues like human trafficking, Travis and her friends were singled out, denied the ability to function equally alongside other student organizations, and literally locked out of their meeting space.

All this because they required their leaders (again, not their students) to uphold the group’s mission and purpose.

These are just two examples. Similar problems are going on in Florida, Indiana, Maine, New York, and Washington. All across the country, religious organizations are being scrutinized and investigated for a leadership philosophy that almost all groups with student leaders share.

The only difference is that the religious nature of these groups make it easier for misinformed, misguided administrators to yell “foul play.”

Let Students Freely Engage

A true commitment to academic freedom, diversity, and intellectual engagement (objectives that all colleges and universities say they desire) requires giving students and groups the ability to operate freely as they add value to their campuses by sharing their unique perspectives—religious or secular.

The world is a complex place. Forcing certain groups off campus and thus shielding students from ideas in college won’t help students adequately prepare for the increasingly diverse world ahead of them.

All student groups—even those who require their leaders to uphold their mission to adequately function—must have an equal place at the table.

True academic freedom and diversity cannot exist otherwise. (For more from the author of “Proponents of ‘Diversity’ Tried to Force My Religious Group off Campus” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Moscow Issues Its First Nuclear Challenge to Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Almost right out of the gate, the Trump administration is facing its first arms control challenge from Moscow.

Russia has reportedly deployed its new cruise missile in an apparent violation of the Reagan-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, in effect since 1988.

The treaty prohibits the possession of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. Russia’s ground-launched SSC-8 cruise missile has been under development and testing for several years.

Russia initially violated the treaty by testing the missile during Barack Obama’s presidency. Despite becoming aware of this apparent violation, the Obama administration did not take any forceful action to bring Russia back into compliance with the treaty, merely sending President Vladimir Putin a letter of concern in July of 2014.

The Obama administration was less than forthcoming in discussing challenges that the treaty violation poses for the United States and its allies. The State Department’s annual compliance reports prior to July 2014 wrongly led Americans to believe there was no reason for concern over the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, even though the missile has reportedly been tested as early as 2008.

The Trump administration must do better.

The missile range limit of 500 kilometers is significant for U.S. allies in Europe situated close to the Russian borders and to Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave that borders Poland and Lithuania. The presence of Russian intermediate-range missiles would considerably complicate any U.S. efforts to defend its allies in the Baltics and Central and Eastern Europe should Russia decide to violate their territorial integrity.

Such a scenario is not as far-fetched as it might seem. Russia has a recent history of violating other nations’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. It also periodically issues nuclear threats against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies and conducts military exercises that simulate nuclear strikes against Poland.

Gen. Philip Breedlove, commander of Supreme Allied Command Europe and of U.S. European Command, said NATO allies are “concerned” over the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty issue and argued that violations “can’t go unanswered.”

For its part, Russia accuses the United States of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty violations. But Russian accusations are baseless. U.S. missile defense systems do not violate the treaty because the treaty itself contains an exception for them.

Neither do U.S. drones violate the treaty, as they are simply not mentioned by the treaty at all.

The Trump administration has a range of options to respond to the Russian treaty violations. Purely diplomatic measures to address the violation first begun during the Obama administration may not be sufficient.

Historically, arms control tends to limit how the United States learns about military systems and their interactions in a broader context. This is why terminating the treaty is a viable option.

Currently, Moscow is doing whatever it deems necessary to its strategic interest regardless of the treaty, while the United States continues to abide by it. The administration should not ponder any future arms control initiatives and nuclear weapons reduction agreements at least until this issue is resolved. (For more from the author of “Moscow Issues Its First Nuclear Challenge to Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Iran Defeats U.S. Navy in Defiant Animated Film

/0 Comments/in , /by

A full-length animated film depicting an armed confrontation between Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and the U.S. Navy is soon to open in Iranian cinemas, amid rising tensions over President Donald Trump’s hardening rhetoric against Tehran.

The director of the “Battle of Persian Gulf II”, Farhad Azima, said that it was a remarkable coincidence that the release of the film – four years in the making – coincided with a “warmongering” president sitting in the White House.

“I hope that the film shows Trump how American soldiers will face a humiliating defeat if they attack Iran,” Azima told Reuters in a telephone interview from the city of Mashhad in eastern Iran.

The 88-minute animation opens with the U.S. Army attacking an Iranian nuclear reactor, and the U.S. Navy in the Gulf hitting strategic locations across the county.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a powerful branch of the Iranian military, retaliates with full force, raining ballistic missiles on the U.S. warships. (Read more from “Iran Defeats U.S. Navy in Defiant Animated Film” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Decides to Keep Obama’s Radical LGBT Special Envoy, Aiding the Destruction of Traditional Cultures, Imposing American Perversity, Worldwide

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump is keeping in place a special international LGBT “envoy” established by the Obama administration to promote acceptance of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism abroad in the name of U.S. foreign policy.

The reinstatement of open homosexual Randy Berry as Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons was reported Monday by the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade. It is another blow to pro-family advocates who oppose the LGBT agenda and are counting on Trump to root out homosexual and abortion activists from the foreign affairs bureaucracy after eight years of Obama’s leftist policies.

“Keeping Berry only signals to the world that the extreme agenda of the Obama years is still deeply entrenched in the State Department,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

A career foreign service officer who speaks Spanish and Arabic, Berry was given the international “LGBT Envoy” position in 2015. The appointment delighted homosexual activists, who in recent years have turned their attention to less developed nations overseas after accomplishing much of their agenda in the West.

Berry is a committed pro-LGTQ activist who is dedicated to seeing other nations adopt the postmodern Western legal system that grants “rights,” including “marriage,” based on homosexuality and extreme gender deviance. In December, he joined other openly homosexual U.S. diplomats in speaking at an “LGBT Leaders” conference in D.C. sponsored by the Gay & Lesbian Victory Institute. (Read more from “Trump Decides to Keep Obama’s Radical LGBT Special Envoy, Aiding the Destruction of Traditional Cultures, Imposing American Perversity, Worldwide” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Obama Is Scheming to Sabotage Trump’s Presidency

/0 Comments/in , , /by

When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.

In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.

Since Donald Trump’s election, this little-known but well-funded protesting arm has beefed up staff and ramped up recruitment of young liberal activists, declaring on its website, “We’re not backing down.” Determined to salvage Obama’s legacy,”it’s drawing battle lines on immigration, ObamaCare, race relations and climate change.

Obama is intimately involved in OFA operations and even tweets from the group’s account. In fact, he gave marching orders to OFA foot soldiers following Trump’s upset victory. (Read more from “How Obama Is Scheming to Sabotage Trump’s Presidency” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

UNBELIEVABLE: Far Left Trump Haters Calling for Genocide Against White People, Press Totally Silent

/0 Comments/in , , /by

As Americans who recognize the equal place under God of every person, and under law of every citizen, whatever his background, would we find it acceptable if conservative organizations started cooperating with white nationalists?

What if Republicans organized protests against left-wing campus speakers employing violent gangs of whites who wanted to stop non-whites from having children, because they regard other races as a plague on our species?

What if a conservative newspaper employed a spokesman for a radical white racist group, and he wrote on social media that all black men are a threat to public safety? Or if the co-founder of that organization described non-whites as genetically defective, the result of destructive mutations? Imagine if groups with racist agendas like these had instigated riots after the election of President Obama.

No one would need to wait for the social justice left to be outraged at such uncivil, hateful, and destructive abuse of free speech. People from all across the spectrum, including every Christian conservative leader in the country, would step forth to distance themselves from these ideas, and demand that the relevant GOP officials and conservative leaders who’d cooperated with those racists be removed from their positions.

So why are we hearing crickets from Democratic and liberal leaders about the thuggish tactics of the “Antifa” (supposedly anti-fascist) demonstrators who rioted at UC Berkeley when Milo Yiannopolis tried to speak by invitation? Since these groups’ attack on Constitutionally protected free political speech at a college campus doesn’t seem to bother anyone on the high-minded left, maybe this news will: The “Antifa” group in Seattle appears to have posted fliers warning white people not to have children:

Just an isolated incident that might have been a fake? Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so. But there’s evidence that such attitudes go far beyond Seattle. The Toronto Sun reports that Yusra Khogali, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, revealed the same racist agenda, aimed at eliminating white people:

Yusra-Tweet

Even professional journalists feel emboldened to engage in such dangerous talk. Shaun King, a highly visible activist in Black Lives Matter who works for a mainstream liberal tabloid, The New York Daily News, responded to the appalling news that former Penn State athletic coach Jerry Sandusky’s son has been arrested for sexually abusing children (as his father did) with this uplifting reflection:

We have already seen that colleges are removing writers like Shakespeare and Milton from reading lists, solely because they are white men. MTV published a public service announcement in which non-whites and women told white men how to rectify their misbehavior in public. (You might enjoy The Stream‘s tongue-in-cheek response: “My 2017 Resolutions for Minorities and Women.)

But really, there’s nothing funny at all about this kind of divisive rhetoric, or the dangerous undercurrents of group hatred that underlie it. What we’re seeing is the tip of the iceberg, the statements and actions of those who feel bold and secure enough to vent their secret feelings in public. Such open expression of ethnic hatred, unrebuked and virtually unanswered, is profoundly destructive. It’s the kind of talk we saw in Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s, as the prelude to organized violence.

The whole point of the Civil Rights Movement was to remove the question of race from issues of citizenship, to exorcise at last the demon of tribalism from American public life. Those claiming to speak on behalf of minority groups, who lapse into language that would have made racists like Margaret Sanger proud, are betraying everything that Civil Rights demonstrators worked, fought, and died for. (For more from the author of “Far Left Trump Haters Calling for Genocide Against White People” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump, Netanyahu to Reset US-Israeli Relations After Strained 8 Years

/0 Comments/in , /by

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House on Wednesday will mark a chance for the United States and Israel to renew a relationship that had turned tumultuous in the eight years under President Barack Obama’s administration, experts say.

“It probably won’t take long to return to the warm relationship that has characterized the U.S.-Israeli relationship before,” said Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, in a phone interview with The Daily Signal.

Israel strongly opposed the Obama administration-led Iran nuclear deal, which President Donald Trump is against. Also, the Obama administration abstained from a vote on the United Nations Security Council condemning Israel for its settlements.

Schanzer believes both the Iran deal and the settlements issue can be addressed without too much controversy.

“With the settlements, there was common ground reached by Bush and Ariel Sharon, which allowed Israelis to continue to build in areas that already have significant Israeli population,” Schanzer said, referring to former President George W. Bush and Sharon, a former Israeli prime minister.

Schanzer added it might be difficult to undo the entire Iran nuclear deal, which relieved sanctions on the country, and was agreed upon by the United States and five other countries. However, it’s likely Trump will enforce the agreement in a way Obama would not.

“It will be about rigorous enforcement of the deal and not allowing Iran to cheat even in minor ways,” Schanzer said. “The Obama administration wouldn’t enforce this out of fear the deal would unravel. Trump doesn’t care about Obama’s foreign policy legacy.”

If the deal is enforced, Iran might be the country that walks away, said Jim Phillips, senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at The Heritage Foundation.

“It’s difficult to walk away from the deal now without putting Iran in a better place [than before the deal was made],” Phillips told The Daily Signal. “If the U.S. is out, it’s very unlikely that Russia or China would reimpose international sanctions on Iran.”

Phillips said with vigorous enforcement, Iran is likely to violate the deal, which will mean sanctions should be imposed again.

Though Obama and Netanyahu had a rocky relationship, Trump called Netanyahu during his first week in office.

Trump reportedly said settlements might not help the peace process. Israel’s parliament voted in favor of continuing settlements.

Another major issue could be moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

“Israel supports the move and the U.S. wants to do it in a way that respects security for all in the region,” Schanzer said. “For the U.S., it’s not as complicated as it might seem. It is a very achievable goal if the administration remains committed to it.”

Phillips believes the administration should move slowly on this matter.

“The administration has signaled it will move very cautiously, as they should, because this has the potential to be an explosive issue and could ignite a firestorm even with some allies in the Middle East,” Phillips said. “I would think they will do that this year, but maybe not in the next few months.” (For more from the author of “Trump, Netanyahu to Reset US-Israeli Relations After Strained 8 Years” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

States Cry out for Relief From Judicial Tyranny. Will Congress Respond?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last week, the Arizona House of Representatives passed a House Concurrent Memorial urging Congress “to divide the Ninth Circuit into two separate circuits,” citing a long list of systemic flaws and alleged abuses the court has visited on the people of the Grand Canyon State (editor’s note: better known as judicial tyranny).

“Arizona’s values and laws have long been under assault from an appeals court that is overburdened, overturned far too often, and devoid of justice for many of its petitioners,” reads a statement from Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. about the memorial, who has introduced legislation aimed at remedying the situation.

The bill, H.R 250, would split the more conservative western states from their far Left-leaning coastal counterparts in order to free them “from the burdensome and undue influence of the 9th Circuit Court” with the creation of a new 12th Circuit court.

Currently the circuit is composed of nine Western states and the territory of Guam. What this means in practice is, thanks to blue slip tradition in the judiciary committee, liberal jurists from California, Oregon and Washington end up ruling on cases in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, and Montana. A similar bill in the Senate would also split the circuit, but disagrees on whether or not Washington state should remain part of the Ninth.

“The Ninth Circuit cannot handle the number of states currently entrapped within its jurisdiction, causing access to justice to be delayed,” reads a release from Biggs’ office. “Worse still, the Ninth Circuit has the highest reversal rate in the country, topping 75 percent.”

Resting on the argument that the circuit is too big and too slow with moving its caseload, the press release stops short of saying that the Ninth Circuit encapsulates nearly the entire mountain time zone inside a jurisprudential clown show. But it does that, too.

For example, a week before all eyes were fixed on the three-judge panel that kept in place the Temporary Restraining Order, the same court denied an en banc hearing to the state of Arizona, which it previously forced to issue drivers’ licenses to illegals under Obama’s DACA executive amnesty program.

“Arizona has no cognizable interest in making the distinction it has for drivers’ licenses purposes,” said Judge Harry Pregerson on Feb. 3. “The federal government, not the states, holds exclusive authority concerning direct matters of immigration law.” Twenty-four judges concurred with the ruling; a mere five dissented.

Perhaps Judge Pregerson just forgot that immigration law is the purview of Congress – who repeatedly struck down the DREAM Act – not the executive branch, as Judge Alex Kozinski points out in the dissent. But such is par for the course in the nutty Ninth Circuit.

It makes complete sense that the people of Arizona, and probably the citizens of other states in the region, are tired of far-Left social transformation without representation and calling out for relief from it. The only question is whether they’ll get it. (For more from the author of “Arizona Cries out for Relief From Judicial Tyranny. Will Congress Respond?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Note to the Left: Four Years Ago, Conservatives Were Just as Depressed

/0 Comments/in , /by

Here’s a news flash for Democrats and other Americans on the left: Four years ago, when Barack Obama was re-elected president, conservatives were just as depressed as you are now that Hillary Clinton lost and Donald Trump won.

I describe this as news because this undoubtedly surprises many of you. You probably never gave a moment’s thought to how depressed conservatives were in 2012. (Why would you? Unlike you, we shun hysteria.) But believe me — we were.

Many of us believed that President Obama was doing great damage to America. Now we are convinced that he did more damage to America domestically, to America’s position the world and to the world at large than any other two-term president.

He left office with racial tensions — many of which he exacerbated — greater than at any time since the civil rights era half a century ago. He left the world’s worst regimes — Iran, China, Russia, North Korea and radical Islamist terror groups — stronger and more aggressive than before he became president. Economic growth never rose above 3 percent, a first for a two-term president. He nearly doubled the national debt and had little to nothing to show for it. Obamacare hurt more people financially than it helped medically, including physicians. More people than ever are on government aid. The list is far longer than this.

Moreover, just like most Democrats in 2016, most Republicans in 2012 expected to win. (Read more from the author of “Note to the Left: Four Years Ago, Conservatives Were Just as Depressed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.