From Transgender 101 Class to Puppies for Stress Release, Is the Naval Academy Going off the Deep End?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Last November, the Naval Academy offered “Transgender 101” classes to staff and Midshipmen. A few weeks later, after having lost to Army 17-14 (their first loss in 15 years), the Midshipman are provided puppies for stress relief during finals. While no one thinks ill of a Midshipman in uniform petting a puppy in downtown Annapolis, the image of needing man’s best friend for stress relief during finals at the Naval Academy isn’t sitting too well with many of their Facebook followers, most of whom are associated with the Navy – fans, old salts, and many USNA grads.

Puppies and other furry friends are of course a great salve for many things – hospital patients, lonely elders, the blind, and more recently, those who suffer from PTSD. So the specter of requiring a salve for something that Midshipman have been doing since 1845 doesn’t quite compute when compared to those who have really suffered in the face of a relentless enemy.

Negative comments ranged the gamut –

comment1

comment2

comment3

comment5

comment6

There were also plenty of light-hearted comments busting on the hard-liners, and who doesn’t love a puppy? But what is the mission of the Academy ? It’s to produce warriors who are not afraid of the enemy and are willing to lay their life on the line.

newsflash%2c-impose-stress

Is softness accepted at the Academy? Last September, LT David Nartker (USNA 2011) was issued a punitive letter of reprimand for his role in the capture of two USN boats by Iran in January 2016, for violating Article 92, “failing to obey an order or regulation”.

The entire event was attributed to “failure at every level”, to include the critical junior leadership level and to a “lax culture for US Navy sailors,” in a devastating report from military investigators”.

comment4

And while the Navy often gets chided in good fun for safe surroundings, the SEALS and sailors face grave danger daily all across the globe. Anyone stationed in or close to the Middle East is in harm’s way just for being an American, let alone one in uniform. The USS Cole was bombed in a terrorist attack in Oct 2000, with the loss of 17 sailors and 39 injured. And last January’s embarrassing capture of two Navy boats is testament that a Naval Academy graduate’s “moment of truth” is going to come without notice, and his or her training – in toughness – will make or break the engagement.

Don’t forget that Naval Academy graduates also serve in the Marines, the same Marines which have produced General James “Mad Dog” Mattis (Central Washington U, 1971), recently nominated by President Elect Trump for Secretary of Defense and General John Kelly, commissioned as a second lieutenant via Officer Candidate’s School in 1975, and recently nominated for Secretary of Homeland Security. ’62 USNA graduate John Ripley, Colonel USMC, is memorialized at the Academy for heroism in stopping he North Vietnamese Army’s advance into South Vietnam.

While all of these men embody toughness, no doubt they have compassion for their countrymen and especially their troops. But would they encourage furry friends as a means for building toughness to lead a strong military?

Compassion and diplomacy are critical characteristics for officers at all levels. So is toughness. The ability to handle stressful combat situations is based on training in handling stress, not on looking for the nearest puppy or kitten as soon as the stress level goes up. Let’s hope the Naval Academy doesn’t forget this.

Finally, one thing you should never do is give your enemy “talking points” about your weakness. One can only imagine the West Point cadets salivating at this gift of ridicule and humor, to be on national display in Philadelphia on December 9 this year.

west-point-field-day

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Was the Video Torture of a Handicapped “Trump Supporter” Really a Love Crime?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Chicago police just couldn’t decide whether the kidnapping and video-livestreamed torture of a learning disabled white man constituted a hate crime or just kids being “stupid.” As Fox 32 reported:

The footage shows the suspects kicking, hitting and cutting the hair of the victim while he was gagged. Shouts of “F*** Trump!” and “F*** white people!” can be heard in the background.

At one point, the victim is held at knife point and told to curse President-elect Donald Trump. The group also forces the victim to drink water from a toilet.

The victim was held hostage for at least 24 hours and as long as 48 hours.

The American Mirror commented: “To listen to the initial reaction of Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson, the filmed shock attack on a white special needs resident … was just kids being kids.” It quoted Johnson:

Some of it is just stupidity. People just ranting about something they think might make a headline. … At this point we don’t have anything concrete to point to to suspect it’s a hate crime, but we’ll keep investigating and let the facts guide us on how this concludes.

Now, there is good reason to question the whole idea of a “hate crime.” Why should it matter from a legal point of view precisely why a criminal attacks someone and violates his right to life, liberty, or property? Was the record-setting murder spree that engulfed Democrat-run Chicago in 2016 — which largely saw non-whites killing non-whites — a wave of “love crimes,” since those murders weren’t racially motivated?

But granting that the legal category of hate crime does exist, why was there the slightest reluctance to label what these four vicious young people did a hate crime? They used racial epithets (check), targeted a member of another race (check), and forced him at knife point to denounce a white politician (check). It sounds like it fits the bill.

What would have happened if four white kids from Donald Trump’s native Queens had reacted to Barack Obama’s election in 2008 by kidnapping a handicapped black teen and forcing him to damn Obama at knife point? The entire racial grievance industry, the mainstream media, and the federal government would have swung into action to address a “national crisis” of white-on-black political violence.

What Matters Isn’t the Victim, but the “Narrative”

The media reactions to this crime were different, to say the least. The iconic Washington Post let columnist Callum Borchers blow right past the horror inflicted on a helpless, imprisoned American, to focus on the dangerous “pro-Trump” “narrative” which this attack could be used to bolster — the idea that just as white people can target black people for crimes, it can also work the other way around. We see here the mind of an ideologue, trapped in its little Habitrail, scurrying left and right to avoid the plain and ugly facts and obtain its little pellet of “social justice.”

Why did it take many long hours for Chicago police to classify this obvious hate crime as a hate crime, and charge the attackers accordingly? Indeed, they might not have done so without the explosion of public comment, admirably led by Paul Joseph Watson, a gadfly at Alex Jones’ InfoWars:

Only Whites Can Be Racist, Got It?

Why is there a double standard on hate crimes? For the same reason that leftists deny that black hatred for whites (or Asians or Jews) can constitute racism:

Because whites have all the institutional power in society, and “racism” is defined as an act that perpetuates institutional power. So when black rioters targeted Korean grocers during the Los Angeles riots, beat them bloody, called them “gooks” and burned their businesses, what they were doing wasn’t “racist.” You have to call it something else.

I had this principle of cultural Marxism carefully explained to me at an official gathering called by the Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge, which priests and church employees were forced to attend, back in the early 90s. Clearly someone in the church had taken his Saul Alinsky training and put it to use.

It’s a gross oversimplification to lump together all people of the same ethnic group as having the same power or “privilege.” White coal-miners in Appalachia who have been put out of jobs by Obama administration regulations clearly have less institutional power than my black classmates from Yale enjoy. To lump people together in broad racial categories and grant them different treatment under law… that in fact sounds more like the classical definition of racism. (For more from the author of “Was the Video Torture of a Handicapped “Trump Supporter” Really a Love Crime?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Unlikely Allies? Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham Join Forces to End the UN’s Taxpayer Gravy Train

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republican offices in the Senate are fully committed to bringing legislation forward to stop full or partial U.S. funding to the United Nations. A bill that withdraws commitments to the U.N., or puts in place conditions for further support, can be expected in the next couple weeks, Senate sources confirmed to Conservative Review.

Senate offices have become irate with the international body’s treatment of the state of Israel in particular. And they have expressed dismay with how the U.N. as a whole has continued to act against American interests.

A bipartisan bill is expected to pass Congress Thursday or Friday condemning the United Nations for its anti-Israel approach. However, to several congressional offices, merely objecting to another wrongful U.N. vote is not enough to change the institution’s tyrannical behavior.

Senators Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. and Ted Cruz, R-Texas are building a coalition to bring forward these efforts on the Senate side. Their offices are currently drafting the legislation, which is expected to be made public in the coming weeks.

Graham and Cruz’s proposal and other defund-U.N. efforts have already received public support from Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Marco Rubio R-Fla., and James Lankford, R-Okla. Additionally, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has supported the dissolution of the U.N. in its entirety.

The move comes after the United Nations decided to pass a late December resolution demonizing Israel, which the Obama administration let through thanks to their abstention at the Security Council. The resolution castigated Israel on “settlements” and falsely claimed that Israel’s holiest sites and cities belonged to Palestinians.

The United Nations costs the American taxpayer over $3 billion a year, not including the hundreds of millions of dollars in lost real estate value on the Manhattan East Side from the U.N. headquarters and countless diplomatic buildings.

“As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I oversee the United States assistance to the United Nations. The United States is currently responsible for approximately 22 percent of the United Nations total budget,” Sen. Graham said before the resolution, warning there would be severe consequences for the continued bullying of Israel.

“If the United Nations moves forward with the ill-conceived resolution, I will work to form a bipartisan coalition to suspend or significantly reduce United States assistance to the United Nations,” he added.

On the House side, Conservative Review has learned that GOP leadership is discussing with conservative legislators potential strategies that would result in a vote coming to the floor in late January.

Leadership has “made a commitment” to propose additional avenues later in January that will provide more direct pathways toward expressing “Congress’ displeasure with the U.N. action,” a conservative House member tells Conservative Review.

BuzzFeed reports that members of President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team have not yet committed one way or another when it comes to U.N. funding. Before the international body voted to condemn Israel, Trump took to Twitter to express his disgust with the U.N., and pledged to have Jerusalem’s back once he got into office. Trump has also been highly critical of the Obama administration’s series of attacks against Israel.

Currently, the United States continues to fund several anti-American U.N. institutions, including UNRWA, which has embedded itself with Palestinian terrorists; UNESCO, which denies Jewish and Christian claims to the Holy Land; and the U.N. Human Rights Council, which has a membership roster that includes the most dictatorial nations in the world. (For more from the author of “Unlikely Allies? Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham Join Forces to End the UN’s Taxpayer Gravy Train” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Black Democrats Stole Votes in Alabama… And Jeff Sessions Tried to Stop It

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Left has lobbed many false charges at Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. (C, 78%), Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general. But perhaps the most outrageous claim is that he tried to suppress African-American voters in 1985 by pursuing a voter fraud prosecution in Perry County, Alabama.

The bogus accusation would be laughable, were it not such a familiar tactic. But this is just another instance of so-called “progressives” going all out to protect their own — even when the victims are black voters.

Perry County is a rural county of about 10,000 residents in west-central Alabama in an area known as the Black Belt for its dark, rich soil. Its population is majority black (68.7 percent, according to the 2010 census) and overwhelmingly Democratic (Barack Obama received 73 percent of the vote in 2008). The key to winning any local office in Perry County is to win the Democratic primary.

Perry County has long been plagued by accusations of voter fraud in local elections. As former Alabama Democratic congressman Artur Davis said, “The most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African American community” that he saw in Alabama was “the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt.”

On April 20, 1983, a local county grand jury (with a majority of black members and a black foreperson) issued a report concerning problems in the balloting process that targeted the “aged, infirmed, or disabled.” The grand jury called for the “vigorous prosecution of all violations of the voting laws” and requested “the presence and assistance of an outside agency, preferably federal, to monitor our elections and to ensure fairness and impartiality for all.”

But Sessions, the U.S. Attorney in the region, did not open a federal investigation into the 1982 election. In his Senate Questionnaire for the attorney general nomination, he explains that he was hoping it wouldn’t be necessary, that the county grand jury report would cause local activists to “conform to the law.” Unfortunately, that did not happen.

Instead, as LaVon Phillips, a black legal assistant in the Perry County district attorney’s office, later testified, her office received numerous complaints during the 1984 election cycle. Black voters and incumbent black officials reported that voters were receiving absentee ballots they had never requested. Moreover, she testified that local candidate Albert Turner was illegally picking up absentee ballots from voters.

A handwriting expert concluded that Turner had written in his own name on some of the absentee ballots. Other black voters had gone to the polls only to be told that someone had already voted in their names by absentee ballot.

What was happening? Perry County was embroiled in an intense political fight pitting one set of black Democratic candidates against another. But one side was apparently willing to do anything to win.

All of this culminated in the 1984 Democratic primary in which key county commission seats, as well as the tax assessor’s post and other local offices, were on the line. With one exception, all the serious candidates were black.

A week before the primary, Sessions said he received a call from District Attorney Roy Johnson informing him that two black Democratic candidates opposed by Turner — Reese Billingslea and Warren Kinard — “were convinced that fraud was occurring in the election.” Turner and others were collecting large numbers of absentee ballots that “were being taken to a central headquarters where the ballots were altered to ensure that they were marked for candidates endorsed by Turner.”

Billingslea and Kinard had information that the altered ballots would be taken to the county post office the night before the election to be mailed. They were “extremely concerned about the election and believed it was being stolen from them.” And sure enough, the night before the election, Turner and his wife Evelyn showed up at the post office with more than 300 ballots, while their co-conspirator Spencer Hogue, showed up with 170. All told, Turner and his minions mailed 504 of the 729 absentee ballots cast in the election.

According to Sessions, FBI analysis showed that at least 75 of the ballots had been altered, and 25 voters said they had not given their ballots to the Turners or Hogue for mailing. One African-American family of six voters (the Sheltons) testified that they had not given permission to change their votes — particularly since the candidate they had originally voted for was their cousin! Ultimately, Turner admitted changing the Sheltons’ absentee votes.

A 34-page federal grand jury indictment filed on Jan. 25, 1985 lays out in great detail the actions of the Turners and Hogue in the voter fraud case. The object of the conspiracy was to elect the candidates they had “supported and endorsed.” According to the indictment, they used Evelyn Turner’s position as a notary public to witness absentee ballots falsely in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The indictment also gives the lie to the spurious claim recently made by former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a member of the Turner/Hogue defense team. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick claims that Sessions based the case on the legal theory that it was a federal crime “for someone to help someone else to vote or to advise them how they should vote — even if and when they ask for such help.” As the indictment makes clear, that was not the theory of the case.

Neither the Turners nor Hogue were prosecuted for assisting voters. The indictment charges them with picking up absentee ballots to “open and fraudulently change those ballots that had not been marked for candidates supported and endorsed” by the defendants. They were prosecuted for allegedly casting “false, fictitious, spurious and fraudulently altered absentee ballots.”

Yet somehow, the Left would have us believe that this was a racist prosecution.

It’s a totally fabricated claim, spun from thin air by Sen. Ted Kennedy and his allies to block the 1986 appointment of Sessions to the federal bench and now resurrected by the NAACP and Democrats.

A Dec. 28, 2016 interview with Craig Donsanto confirms the deception. Now retired, Donsanto was the long-time head of the Election Crimes Unit inside the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Donsanto, who is now retired, was well-known in the U.S. election community and was a nationally recognized expert on election crimes.

Donsanto wrote the Justice Department’s manual on “Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses,” which is distributed to the 93 U.S. attorney’s offices across the country. During his more than 40 years as a prosecutor, Donsanto was the go-to authority inside the Justice Department for all election crime prosecutions — including the Perry County case. No one could file such a case without getting his OK.

Donsanto remembers the Perry County case well. Indeed, he was in Alabama at the federal courthouse when the grand jury voted to return the indictment, thereby initiating the formal charges.

“No federal prosecutor faced with the evidence seen by the grand jury would have failed to take the case and go forward with the prosecution,” Donsanto told me. “The evidence in the case was overwhelming. I was there with the other assistant U.S. attorneys and not one dissented — everyone thought it was a solid case. I told Jeff Sessions to go forward with the case.”

Donsanto did more than that. He helped prepare the indictment.

Donsanto is highly offended by any claims that the prosecution was racist. The federal prosecutors were “trying to protect black voters who were having their votes stolen,” he notes. Moreover, the investigation was initiated only after local black voters and candidates complained to the Justice Department. When asked about the fact that a jury found the defendants not guilty, Donsanto says that as a former federal prosecutor, he respects the jury system.

But there is no question in Donsanto’s mind that, given the overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, this was an example of “jury nullification.” The defendants, he notes, “were local civil rights activists, and the jury was not going to find them guilty no matter what they did.”

How otherwise could one account for the jury, for example, discounting the testimony of all six members of the Shelton family that Turner had changed their ballots without their permission or knowledge?

The false claim of racism to cover up wrongdoing and the power struggle between black Democrats in Perry County, as well as the methods used to steal absentee ballots, is eerily similar to another voter fraud prosecution conducted by the Justice Department in nearby Greene County, Ala., 10 years later. Craig Donsanto was also intimately involved in that prosecution.

Greene County has almost the same size population as Perry County and is 80 percent black. Just like in the Perry County case, the Justice Department received calls from black Democratic candidates who said their election was being stolen through absentee ballot fraud by other black candidates and activists.

Suitcases full of absentee ballots were brought to the county post office the day before the 1994 election. The result of the federal investigation showed that the defendants submitted hundreds of fraudulent absentee ballots created through an assembly line process that forged signatures, altered ballots, and convinced some voters to sign blank ballots.

Fortunately, jury nullification did not happen in Greene County. Eleven local officials and activists were eventually convicted. But just as in Perry County, the Greene County defendants and civil rights organizations like the NAACP and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (whose treasurer was convicted in this case) falsely alleged that the prosecution was a racist conspiracy intended to suppress black voters through “Gestapo” tactics. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund even defended some of the vote stealers, and NAACP officials met with Attorney General Janet Reno to try to convince her to drop the prosecution.

John Kennard, the first black official ever elected in Greene County, was one of the candidates who first contacted the FBI. He was outraged by the accusations made against the prosecutors and by the intercession of civil rights organizations on the side of the voter fraud conspirators instead of on behalf of the black candidates whose votes had been stolen.

In an angry letter to Julian Bond, then chairman of the NAACP, Kennard wrote that helping the vote stealers was “tantamount to … defending the policemen that used the fire hoses and dogs, and Eugene ‘Bull’ Conner in Birmingham, in the early 1960s.” According to Kennard, the defendants “knew they had a fail-safe way out, when all else fails … cry racism, intimidation and pretend they are victims when they were the perpetrators of this crime.”

In Perry County, Jeff Sessions and the other Justice Department lawyers were trying to protect black voters from having their right to vote stolen — a precious right that those voters had fought very hard to obtain during the civil rights battles of the 1950s and 1960s. Unfortunately, a jury let the defendants off despite the evidence in the case, including testimony from black residents of the county about how their ballots had been altered and changed without their permission. And that is the real tragedy of this case.

As Craig Donsanto says, this was a prosecution intended to preserve and protect the right to vote, something to which he dedicated his entire professional career. Anyone who claims this was a racist prosecution by Jeff Sessions is, according to Donsanto, “a liar and a political opportunist of the worst kind.” (For more from the author of “How Black Democrats Stole Votes in Alabama… And Jeff Sessions Tried to Stop It” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Obamacare ‘Repeal and Replace’ Became a ‘Bait and Switch’ Monstrosity

/0 Comments/in , /by

Earlier this week, we warned that absent a major course correction, Republicans plan to keep the insurance regulations — the most onerous part of Obamacare, which is responsible for permanently destroying the insurance market.

Hence there is no repeal of most of Obamacare, just the funding mechanisms, such as the subsidies and the individual mandate. Worse, they are considering preserving some of the tax increases of the law in order to fund “the replacement” of the subsidies with … subsidies in-all-but-name-only (on top of the $1 trillion we spend on federal-run health care, not including state expenditures).

Earlier today, CQ posted an article which confirms these suspicions — that “Republicans consider keeping some Obamacare taxes intact” (subscription required):

Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, whose committee has jurisdiction over the law’s taxes in the House, suggested the issue is part of the ongoing discussion, but that no decisions had yet been made.

“As we look at the deal, as we look at the numbers, and more importantly, the step-by-step approach to make health care more affordable, the taxes themselves become a part of that discussion,” Brady said. “Truly, no decisions have been made yet. We’re looking at the universe of options there.”

A Senate staffer suggested a similar discussion had come up among members this week.

Whether they ultimately keep some of the taxes or give into conservative pressure to include all Obamacare taxes in the repeal bill, the die is already cast on their “replace” bill. It is quite evident that they plan to create a massive entitlement built on top of preserving the insurance regulations and therefore are in need of an enormous pot of savings and revenues to fund the new scheme. The truth is the lobbyists for the health care industry want to continue a massive stream of subsidies and that is driving much of this perfidy:

Several lobbyists indicated that waiting to repeal some of the law’s more unpopular taxes, like the Cadillac tax, could entice some interest groups to work more closely on the replacement effort. It would also increase the savings associated with repealing the legislation, which could change the negotiation dynamics.

The mix of not repealing the price-hiking insurance regulations and replacing the existing subsidies with a new form of subsidies is a toxic combination. In fact, it is simply a bait-and-switch of the existing core of Obamacare.

I would define the main component of Obamacare in one sentence as follows: Require that private insurance companies offer coverage that is actuarially insolvent and unsustainably expensive and then offer massive taxpayer subsidies for families to afford those unsustainable plans, which in turn artificially inflates the price of insurance even more, which in turn engenders an even greater need for subsidization.

That is essentially the general cycle of government intervention in a nutshell, most dramatically embodied through Obamacare in particular. And that is essentially what will result from the GOP bait-and-switch plan to maintain the insurance regulations and concoct massive subsidies through refundable tax credits.

This plan will not only raise the cost of health care/health insurance and engender a greater need for government subsidization of unaffordable “private” plans, but it will also distort the health care market in general for the existing government-run programs, such as Medicaid.

The cost of covering an individual in the subpar Medicaid program was $3,247 per individual in 2011 before Obamacare was enacted. In 2015, according to data from the Department of Health and Human Services, the cost of enrolling an individual in Medicaid doubled to $6,366 per individual. And that is only for the second year of implementation. The cycle of regulation, public funding, overutilization, and lack of ability to peg the cost to the service has created a circuitous death spiral of unaffordable costs and unsustainable subsidies.

This cycle of failure is nothing but a handout to hospitals and insurers. Anyone concerned with helping the most people and creating a sustainable pro-growth economy would focus on lowering costs through deregulation, limiting subsidization, restoring insurance to its original purpose, and empowering individuals to have portable control over their own destiny through expanded HSAs.

Yet, Republicans are pursuing the elusive utopian goal of universal coverage (Obamacare in-all-but-name-only) because that has long been the official position of K-Street and the Chamber of Commerce. A more efficient socialism is good for their clients.

Nothing about this past election has changed the political barometer and priorities of GOP leaders in Congress. It’s one big bait-and-switch. It is now up to the president-elect and his likely influential vice president to make good on their promise to fully repeal Obamacare and replace socialism with the free market. (For more from the author of “How Obamacare ‘Repeal and Replace’ Became a ‘Bait and Switch’ Monstrosity” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump and Congress Want to Audit the Fed. Let’s Do It Already!

/0 Comments/in , /by

Back when Ron Paul was in Congress, you could always count on him to do one thing: introduce the same bill every year, heedless of futility or Sisyphean labor, to conduct a comprehensive audit of the United Stated Federal Reserve Bank.

It never went anywhere. But undaunted, the elder Paul continued the tradition right up until his retirement, at which point he passed the mantle to his son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. (A, 92%).

Rand continues to introduce the bill every year, with increasing probability of action, receiving a rare vote in the Senate in 2016. This year, the warriors of monetary policy may have their best shot yet at success, as a new version of the bill is being sponsored by Rand and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. (A, 94%) with vocal support from the incoming Trump administration.

The Federal Reserve is a nominally independent agency that regulates the nation’s money supply, controls interest rates, and occasionally intervenes in markets more directly, as when it purchased toxic mortgages during the 2008 housing crisis. The Fed generally operates behind the scenes in comparative secrecy, with the general public having only a vague conception of what the agency actually does.

What few people realize is that when the Fed alters the money supply and changes interest rates, it is sowing the seeds of future economic disaster by introducing distorted signals into money markets. Not only does dramatically expanding the money supply (as the agency has done for the last decade) create inflation that causes consumer prices to rise, but it also leads investors into making bad decisions that harm the economy as a whole.

The Fed is adamant that it is already subject to audits by the inspector general, and that it is already fully transparent. The agency is also adamant in its opposition to the Audit the Fed bill. Can you spot the inconsistency? If the agency is already transparent, then the bill would do nothing, so why oppose it?

The truth is that, while the Fed is subject to periodic audits, these are only partial reviews of the agency’s activities that leave out many of the most important aspects of what the Fed does: Transactions with foreign governments, internal communications, and the open market operations that constitute most of what the Fed does are currently exempt from scrutiny. If people knew exactly what goes on behind the agency’s closed doors, they would be shocked at how much power it has to screw things up for the rest of us.

We would also discover that the Fed is not nearly as independent as most people believe. The Fed chairman is appointed by the president, which imparts an inherently partisan slant to anything the agency does. I suspect an audit of internal communications would reveal far more consideration for political concerns than the Board of Governors lets on.

Make no mistake: Auditing the Fed will not be a panacea that will immediately change anything, but it is a necessary first step toward exposing the agency’s actions to the public and convincing ordinary citizens of the need to end the agency’s charter. (For more from the author of “Trump and Congress Want to Audit the Fed. Let’s Do It Already!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Babies Left to Die: UNM Abortion Doctors Not Trained to Deal With Babies Born Alive

/0 Comments/in , /by

“Imagine an infant in an abortion clinic without food, without care, defenseless, confused, crying and grasping for life — being left alone to die on its own.”

That was the response of New Mexico Alliance for Life Executive Director Elisa Martinez, after she read the final report of the Select Panel on Infant Lives. Martinez continued, “It’s almost too difficult to imagine, but this is the reality taking place at UNM Hospital and Southwestern Women’s Options, confirmed by testimony from the abortionists themselves.”

Released Friday, Dec. 30, 2016, the report covers more than a year of investigative effort by the panel, which was established on Oct. 7, 2015, in light of the Center for Medical Progress videos.

One particularly disheartening account is that of abortion doctors at the University of New Mexico (UNM), where a faculty member, whose name is redacted from the report, admitted that doctors at the university were not trained on how to handle children who were born alive during an induced abortion.

This flies in the face of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act — which requires that children born alive in the case of an abortion or attempted abortion receive “immediate admission to a hospital,” “diligence to preserve the life” and the mandatory reporting of any failure to comply with the law.

When pressed for more information, such as if the doctors took resuscitation training, the faculty member, who is also a doctor, simply replied, “OB/GYN doctors do not resuscitate neonates.”

Upon being read the language of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, the faculty member claimed she had not discussed the law with her council, nor did she “understand the relevance” of the law to her practice — despite admitting that she was aware of instances “where a planned abortion … [was] born alive,”

“Coming from the official who is arguably most responsible for making UNM an abortion provider,” the report declares, ” this testimony is a startling reflection of the absence of attention given to any standard of care for infants that survive the abortion procedure.” (For more from the author of “Babies Left to Die: UNM Abortion Doctors Not Trained to Deal With Babies Born Alive” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

It’s the Debt, Donald, the Debt

/0 Comments/in , /by

History can be a fickle judge. Something considered revolutionary in the immediate past can seem quite insignificant later. The long-term reputation of many early twenty-first century American politicians will partly depend on whether they tackle our republic’s colossal public debt.

That includes the incoming President, Donald Trump. He clearly knows it’s a problem. In one campaign stop, he said, “So we have now $19 trillion in deficits. $19 trillion, you know if you look, we owe! … And we’re gonna knock it down and we’re gonna bring it down big league and quickly.”

Any new administration can only do so many things. Yet over the last 16 years, America’s public debt has grown so massive that reducing it must become a priority. And while public finance isn’t the sexiest of subjects, mishandling or simply ignoring the issue will have serious long-term consequences for the United States.

What’s at Stake?

On December 30, 2016, the United States’ official public debt was $19.97 trillion. It’s almost doubled since 2008. It also exceeds the size of America’s economy in nominal GDP in 2016 ($18.56 trillion).

Put another way, America’s public debt is approximately 107% of nominal GDP. To make matters worse, these numbers don’t include state and local government debt or the unfunded liabilities of entitlement programs like Social Security.

The reasons for this rise in public debt aren’t hard to grasp. At its most basic level, it reflects a failure of Congress and the Executive Branch to match spending and revenue since 2000. The gap has narrowed over the past 5 years. Nonetheless, spending continues to exceed revenue. In terms of what’s driving federal expenditures, it is social programs such as healthcare, income security, education, and housing. Spending on activities such as national defense has remained static.

So why should we care? What’s another trillion here or there?

Americans should worry because there’s plenty of evidence that this level of public debt can have grave effects on economic growth.

Once a country’s debt/GDP ratio reaches a particular threshold, one consequence appears to be slower economic growth. Economists argue about the exact threshold at which debt starts to impact growth. Some cite the figure of 85% of GDP. Others say 90%. Economists also debate how fast high debt negatively impacts growth. Yet there’s considerable consensus that, at some point, high debt-to-GDP ratios do have this impact.

Again, some might say, so what? Why should we care about a couple of percentage points less of growth?

Slower economic growth has several negative consequences. Take, for instance, employment. Slow growth means that businesses hire fewer people.

Another effect is that rises in living standards become sluggish, partly because real wage growth slows down. Slow growth also makes it harder for governments to pay down public debt, not least because tax revenues can’t match spending.

Slow growth, however, isn’t the only negative effect of too much public debt. According to a 2010 Congressional Budget Office study, it also undermines “future national income and living standards,” raises the possibility of serious “losses for mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, banks, and other holders of federal debt,” and increases the “probability of a fiscal crisis in which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget, and the government would be forced to pay much more to borrow money.”

What Should We Do?

To address these and other problems associated with high public debt, governments have several options.

One is to raise personal and corporate taxes across the board. That, however, makes a country less competitive. That in turn has negative consequences for growth.

Another option is to cut expenditures in real terms. Here, however, we face a major problem.

A growing majority of federal government spending is now mandated and funded by what are called “permanent appropriations.” This is spending based on existing laws rather than the budget process. That includes “big league” programs like Social Security and Medicare. To get federal expenditures under control in these areas, Congress would have to change existing laws.

2005 was the last time Social Security reform was attempted. It failed, despite President George W. Bush’s willingness to spend political capital on this issue. The opposition was formidable, not least because retirees and about-to-be-retirees vote.

This may explain why Trump has stated he’ll protect Social Security and has ruled out tackling its problems by raising the retirement-age, increasing taxes, or reducing benefits. Trump has said that he’ll seek reform through improving efficiency and reducing waste. It remains to be seen whether this will be enough. Personally, I doubt it.

Why Growth Matters

This leaves us with one option for reducing public debt. And that is to increase the American economy’s rate of growth. A high-growth economy means more employment, a reduced call on the government to help those in need, more tax revenues to reduce debt more aggressively, and a lowering of the debt/GDP ratio.

Here we have some cause for optimism. The new administration is publicly committed to faster growth in the American economy. It wants, for example, to reduce taxes (including corporate taxes which are among the world’s highest) and engage in significant deregulation, especially with regard to the financial sector.

Such measures should incentivize entrepreneurship, help start new businesses, and make capital more available. If this boosts business confidence, there’s a chance that what John Maynard Keynes called “animal spirits — a spontaneous urge to action” will further bolster growth.

On the other hand, every regulation has a group willing to defend it. Any deregulation will face political opposition, some of which will be substantial. Moreover, the Trump Administration seems ready to turn America away from a general commitment to free trade and towards more-or-less protectionist policies. This will harm productivity and thus growth. Tax-cuts and internal deregulation matter for growth, but so does the American economy’s exposure to the discipline of international competition.

Excessive public debt is one of those long-term problems that undermine a country’s well-being and which democratically-elected governments have few political incentives to address. It’s politically easier to punt the problem to future generations.

Any serious effort to make America great again, however, requires a willingness to sell hard choices to the American public. That’s the essence of leadership, which is what Donald Trump has promised. And when it comes to public debt, it’s just what we need. (For more from the author of “It’s the Debt, Donald, the Debt” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is It a Sin for a Christian to Be Obese?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Is it a sin for a Christian to be seriously overweight? When responding to this question, we should answer it for ourselves and not for others, since there are many potential reasons for people to be overweight and we don’t want to pass judgment on them based on outward appearance alone (see John 7:24).

We know that a small percentage of people have a medical condition that contributes to their obesity, such as a thyroid disorder, while others struggle with emotional traumas, like depression or abuse, and they eat out of pain and despair. And there are women who have had several children in a short period of time and find it very challenging to juggle the challenges of life — often on limited sleep — and lose weight at the same time.

It would be very wrong to pass judgment on any of these people, as if they were sinning by being heavy, and that’s why I said upfront that, however we answer the question about Christians and obesity, we need to do it for ourselves, looking in our own mirrors.

We also need to remember that most Christians (not to mention people in general) who are overweight — especially seriously overweight — hate being fat, and some even feel self-condemned. The last thing we want to do is heap more condemnation on them and make them feel worse. They need some hope and encouragement. My goal in addressing this sensitive issue is to lift you up, not beat you up.

And we live in a culture that prizes youthful, air-brushed, perfect-looking bodies, putting young people in particular (and even women in general) under tremendous pressure to look a certain way. That too is a destructive mentality that we must resist.

That being said, if our body is destroyed by unhealthy eating, that is a serious matter, and if my obesity is due to gluttony or lack of self-control or choosing fleshly indulgences to the detriment of my health, then yes, it is sinful for me to be obese.

It is true, of course, that the Bible never says that the glutton will not enter the kingdom of heaven, but it is also true that the Bible speaks about gluttony in very negative terms: “Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags” (Prov. 23:20–21). And, “The one who keeps the law is a son with understanding, but a companion of gluttons shames his father” (Prov. 28:7).

Dictionary.com defines glutton as “a person who eats and drinks excessively or voraciously.” Does that describe me or you?

Jesus was falsely accused of being both a drunkard and a glutton. If He was guilty of either, He would not have been the sinless Son of God.

Consider what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified (1 Cor. 9:24-27).

Notice carefully what Paul is saying, since we often miss an important point in this passage. Paul is urging us to run with success the race of fulfilling God’s purposes for our lives, and he contrasts our reward, which is imperishable, with the reward of an athlete, which is perishable. But don’t miss what Paul said in the midst of his exhortation: Athletes who compete in the games (similar to the Olympics today) exercise self-control in all things. So do we! As translated in the NIV, “They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever” (1 Cor. 9:25, my emphasis).

Can we say the same thing about ourselves? Are we disciplined in all things? Have we subdued our bodies (cf. 1 Cor. 9:27a in the NET) when it comes to food?

Proverbs gives us a strong warning about being out of control with our appetites when in the presence of rulers: “When you sit down to eat with a ruler, observe carefully what [or, who] is before you, and put a knife to your throat if you are given to appetite” (Prov. 23:1-2). As the Pulpit Commentary explains, “‘Stab thy gluttony,’ Wordsworth. Restrain thyself by the strongest measures, convince thyself that thou art in the utmost peril, if thou art a glutton or wine-bibber (Ecclus. 31:12, Ecclus. 34:12).” In the words of Matthew Henry, “The sin we are here warned against is luxury and sensuality, and the indulgence of the appetite in eating and drinking, a sin that most easily besets us.”

I wonder what Matthew Henry would have said if he lived today and saw the portions we are served in our restaurants!

We must ask ourselves if the way we are eating is in harmony with our biblical calling, a calling which includes discipline and self-control. In fact, according to Paul, one of the fruits of the spirit is self-control (Galatians 5:23), with the Greek word meaning, “restraint of one’s emotions, impulses, or desires, self-control” (Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker lexicon). As one commentator explains, “‘self-control’ … denotes control of more sensual passions than anger” (F. F. Bruce).

When it comes to your eating habits, do you have self-control? When it comes to the passions of the flesh for unhealthy food, are you disciplined? Are you controlling your appetite or is your appetite controlling you?

Some of us say that we’re willing to die for Jesus but we’re not willing to control our appetites for Him (or, at the least, we’re not willing to make a serious effort to control those appetites). This simply doesn’t line up. We sing, “I surrender all,” but we practice, “I surrender some.” Or maybe you want to surrender but find yourself helpless and bound?

Notice what Paul has to say about dangerous false teachers: “For many are walking in such a way that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ. I have told you of them often and tell you again, even weeping. Their destination is destruction, their god is their appetite, their glory is in their shame, their minds are set on earthly things” (Phil 3:18-19, MEV). Or, as the relevant phrase is rendered in different versions “their god is their stomach” (HCSB); they “make their bellies their gods” (The Message); “whose God is the stomach” (LEB). How interesting that these heretics were also slaves to food!

Does that describe you? Is your stomach your god? Are you a slave to your appetite?

If so, I have good news for you: God is not condemning you! Instead, He is offering you a better way, a way of discipline, self-control, healthy eating and vibrant life. But, if He has convicted you through this article, I encourage you to confess your bad eating habits as sin, asking the Father for mercy and forgiveness, believing that Jesus paid for this sin as well, and trusting God for grace to overcome. With His help and with a good plan, you can do it! (For more from the author of “Is It a Sin for a Christian to Be Obese?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A General Joins the House’s Conservative Ranks as New Congress Convenes

/0 Comments/in , /by

Six months shy of serving 30 years, Brig. Gen. Don Bacon decided to end his Air Force career so he could speak out on the concerning direction he saw the country taking.

A run for Congress, however, was not what Bacon had originally envisioned.

“I decided to retire a little early because I wanted to speak up, as you can’t do that wearing a uniform,” Bacon told The Daily Signal in a phone interview over the holidays. “And I just felt like our country was going in the wrong direction and I wanted to start writing articles and editorials, giving speeches, just getting involved.”

Bacon, R-Neb., is one of 30 Republican freshmen in the House who were set to be sworn in Tuesday as the new Congress convened, 17 days before Donald Trump’s inauguration as president.

Democrats also welcomed 30 freshmen to the House, where Republicans hold a majority of 241-194 after a net loss of six seats in the Nov. 8 election.

Although a new member, Bacon, 53, has some Capitol Hill experience as an adviser on military issues to Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb. As an assistant professor at Bellevue University, a medium-sized college in Nebraska, he has taught courses on leadership and American vision and values.

Bacon says his desire to become active in civic life was instilled in him long before his military career.

“My story is I was raised on a farm in Illinois,” Bacon said. “[We grew] corn, soybeans, hay, and I was raised with a family that really liked talking about public policy and so I have always had a burning desire to be involved.”

‘Maybe This Is Why We’re Here’

Bacon says he saw serving his country in the military as a good place to start. “I joined the Air Force at 21 as a newlywed,” he said.

It was 1985 and he had gotten his political science degree from Northern Illinois University the year before.

Bacon went on to serve in 16 assignments in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and “coast to coast in the United States and a lot of places in the middle,” he said. His duties included electronic warfare, intelligence, and reconnaissance.

Above all, however, Bacon says, his favorite part of his Air Force service was the opportunity to command at military bases, including at Ramstein Air Base in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, and Offutt Air Force Base near Bellevue, Nebraska.

During four deployments to the Middle East, he helped establish the Israeli missile defense system. He commanded an electronic warfare squadron during the invasion of Iraq and returned to Baghdad for a yearlong tour during the surge of 2007-2008.

Bacon says he retired from the Air Force in 2014 because he wanted to start getting politically involved and campaign for “down-ballot folks” who he believed to be principled leaders for Nebraska.

He will represent Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, which includes Douglas and Sarpy counties in the eastern part of the state.

He decided to run for Congress after Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., lost re-election in 2014 to a Democrat state senator, Brad Ashford.

“Our congressman got defeated … by a 30-year local Democrat politician,” Bacon said. “He [Ashford] had 30 years of history in the state. My wife and I looked at each other and said, maybe this is why we’re here and maybe we can make a difference.”

Bacon and his wife, Angie, who works in Omaha as a real estate agent, have three sons and a daughter ranging in age from 20 to 32, plus three granddaughters.

‘We Built a Small Team’

Bacon said Ashford attempted to portray himself as a moderate, but the incumbent Democrat’s record proved otherwise.

Ashford, he said, “voted for Nancy Pelosi twice for speaker and voted with her about 80 percent of the time.”

Considered one of the most liberal Democrats in Congress, Pelosi, D-Calif., is the former House speaker and current Democratic leader.

“You will not have that with Don Bacon in Congress,” he said.

The road to Congress, however, was by no means easy and Bacon says things came together slowly.

One challenge was building his name recognition, which stood at 9 percent in January 2015, he says.

“We started out very slow,” Bacon said. “No one knew who I was, and so we had a couple of the local mayors who knew me from being the base commander. So we just built a small team.”

The hard work paid off, however. In the May 10 primary, Bacon defeated lawyer and former state legislator Chip Maxwell, a tea party favorite, by a 2-to-1 margin, the Omaha World-Herald reported.

In the end, Bacon beat Ashford by a margin of fewer than 5,600 votes Nov. 8, and the incumbent Democrat called the next morning to concede.

He is one of only three Republicans who defeated an incumbent House Democrat, according to OpenSecrets.org.

Bacon told The Daily Signal:

I think, on paper, it looked like an uphill climb. My opponent [Ashford] had much more money and much more name ID. I think we had a better story to tell.

Inspiring Young Volunteers

Bacon described his campaign as centered around four pillars: addressing harmful regulations by federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Labor, reforming the tax code, addressing the national debt of nearly $20 trillion, and strengthening the military.

Bacon said the Obama administration “underestimated ISIS,” the terrorist army that calls itself the Islamic State, and the Trump administration must unite with other countries to defeat ISIS.

“I hope we can be able to work with more of our traditional allies to go after ISIS. I think that’s the one thing we’ve got to do better,” Bacon said.

Bacon said his campaign’s success largely is due to the young people who volunteered:

I had 150 young volunteers on our team from three different universities and 10 different high schools and we knocked on 130,000 doors … and that is probably the reason I won. I am excited that a conservative can pull on a lot of young people.

The conviction of young people in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District did not go unnoticed.

Hal Daub, a former mayor of Omaha who represented the district from 1981-1989, served as Bacon’s finance chairman. The youth who got involved helped make the campaign a success, he said.

“A core group of about 60 showed up for everything and did a lot of the walking and stuffing and sticking and licking and calling, all the things that you do to make a campaign really work,” Daub told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.

‘Not the Politicians’ House’

Daub said Bacon made such a significant impact because of his personality and interest in young people:

He cared about them and reached out to them, and it was fun to watch the chemistry between this marching army, this brigade, of young people really, really working hard to elect Don. And I think he relates so very well to young people.

Brett Lindstrom, a Republican state senator from Nebraska’s 18th District, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview that Bacon brought certain qualities to bear.

“Don brings that energy and Don is very young at heart and able to lead that charge, and I think he is the type of guy that people want to follow,” Lindstrom said.

Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., said she looks forward to seeing what Bacon’s leadership in Congress will bring.

“I know Don will be a positive, strong leader for the 2nd District,” Fischer said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal. “He will fight to uphold Nebraska values, and his extensive military leadership experience has prepared him to address the many threats our nation faces both abroad and here at home.”

Bacon said his desire is to serve his constituents and build a record based on addressing their concerns.

“We have lots of career politicians in Washington right now, and I don’t think it serves us well,” Bacon said. “Congress is supposed to be the people’s house, not the politicians’ house.” (For more from the author of “A General Joins the House’s Conservative Ranks as New Congress Convenes” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.