Battleground State Freefall for Trump Continues

/0 Comments/in , /by

With less than four weeks remaining in the 2016 race it couldn’t look much worse the campaign of Donald Trump. His free fall in key battleground state polling has continued unabated. What makes it even more concerning for Trump is that most of the battleground state polling has not even taken into account the Access Hollywood audio tape.

As usual, I took a look at the RealClearPolitics polling average in 14 battleground states on Wednesday afternoon, October 12, 2016. It was compared to the data from the previous week. In 11 of those 14 states Trump lost ground to Clinton, one state showed no change, and in two states Trump showed a slight up tic.

Clinton now leads in 10 of the 14 states shown in the week-by-week graphics below. Trump leads in four. Clinton leads by over six points or more in six of those states, Trump leads by greater than six in one of them. Of particular concern to Trump is Arizona, where he now holds a slim one point margin.

If the election were held today, Trump would lose in an Electoral College rout.

As an indicator of how bad Trump’s situation is, look at this tweet from the Marquette University Law School polling department. It illustrates how Trump’s numbers deteriorated after the release of the Billy Bush conversation last Friday.

That is shocking. Trump went from a one point lead pre-tape to a 19 point deficit two days later.

Trump’s problems are compounded by the fact that instead of going on offense on Hillary Clinton, like he did at the debate this week, he has spent the majority of his time attacking his fellow Republicans for not loving him enough.

It’s going to be a long three weeks for the Trump campaign. (For more from the author of “Battleground State Freefall for Trump Continues” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pro-Life Groups Fight Obama Administration’s ‘Parting Gift’ to Planned Parenthood

/0 Comments/in , /by

Pro-life groups are taking action against what they call the Obama administration’s “parting gift” to Planned Parenthood.

“This is a political judgment, a parting gift,” Chuck Donovan, president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, said of the new rule that could make it more difficult for states to defund Planned Parenthood clinics. “It’s part of the devotion to big abortion.”

The Department of Health and Human Services’ proposed rule came in response to several states’ attempt to defund Planned Parenthood after the nation’s largest abortion provider was featured in a series of undercover videos last year.

Under the rule, states would be prohibited from blocking Planned Parenthood from receiving Title X grant money for reasons “unrelated” to its ability to provide family planning services.

Created in 1970, Title X provides grants to health organizations for family planning services such as birth control and sterilizations. The manner in which states distribute federal Title X funds varies, but grants are typically allocated to health agencies and private networks. Sometimes, it is up to the state to allocate the grant money, and other times, private entities can decide.

After the Center for Medical Progress released several undercover videos last year that raised questions about whether Planned Parenthood illegally profits off the sale of tissue from aborted babies, states—including Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin—moved to block the group from being eligible to receive family planning funds.

Planned Parenthood denied the allegations, and was cleared in multiple investigations.

In justifying the new rule that it released in September, the Obama administration claims the state effort to defund Planned Parenthood has decreased the number of Title X providers from 48 to 36, and also decreased the total number of Title X clients served.

In response, groups like the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Susan B. Anthony List, Family Research Council, and Alliance Defending Freedom are filing comments with HHS opposing the proposal.

“The question isn’t whether states should fund Planned Parenthood,” Steven H. Aden, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal. “All of them do, to my knowledge. The question is whether the states should be permitted by the Obama administration to shepherd limited public health dollars in a way that most effectively delivers primary and secondary health care to women.

“What the proposed rule does is define success under Title X solely on the ability to provide the most contraceptives to the most women. That’s Planned Parenthood’s business model and unfortunately, that’s this administration’s idea of women’s health care. But Title X is much broader than that.”

A summary of the proposed rule, as described by the Department of Health and Human Services, states:

Since 2011, 13 states have taken actions to restrict participation by certain types of providers as subrecipients in the Title X program based on factors unrelated to the providers’ ability to provide the services required under Title X effectively. In at least several instances, this has led to disruption of services or reduction of services where a public entity, such as a state health department, holds a Title X grant and makes 21 subawards to subrecipients for the provision of services. In response to these actions, this proposed rule requires that any Title X recipient subawarding funds for the provision of Title X services not prohibit a potential subrecipient from participating for reasons unrelated to its ability to provide services effectively.

“Explain to me why a woman going to a federally qualified health center that has the Title X grant is gaining access because the grant just went away and went to the Planned Parenthood 5 miles away. That’s what they’re saying,” Donovan said.

Federally qualified health centers provide comprehensive health care to millions of uninsured, working poor, and jobless Americans each year. In addition to providing obstetrician-gynecologist services, federally qualified health centers offer a variety of primary and secondary services. For this reason, Donovan argues women are better off visiting one of these centers to obtain comprehensive health care.

“It certainly is a pro-life issue because Planned Parenthood is so identified with abortion,” he said, “but it’s also much more than that.”

The Daily Signal contacted the National Association of Community Health Centers, which represents 1,200 health centers across the U.S., but the organization declined to comment.

Donovan said he can’t explain why community health centers wouldn’t want to speak out about the grant money they stand to lose but said he “would hope we hear more complaints by them.”

Groups like the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all came out in support of the Obama administration’s proposal, arguing the rule is “consistent in their efforts to ensure effective and accessible reproductive health care for all populations.” (For more from the author of “Pro-Life Groups Fight Obama Administration’s ‘Parting Gift’ to Planned Parenthood” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Obama Political Aides Get Preference Over Veterans for Government Jobs

/0 Comments/in , /by

A disabled veteran didn’t get a job he sought in a federal agency, although he was qualified for the position and was supposed to receive preference. The job went instead to a political appointee of the Obama administration.

This was just one instance in which a nonpartisan government investigation found agencies didn’t follow the rules in hiring one-fourth of all the President Barack Obama political appointees who will be settled in career posts after a new president is sworn in Jan. 20.

One Senate committee chairman said the Obama administration’s failure to follow procedures is “troubling,” while another said the administration “should ensure fairness and competition” in filling jobs.

The disabled veteran applied for a job at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

That FDIC was supposed to get approval from the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the federal workforce, before passing over the veteran in March 2010 in favor of the Obama appointee. The personnel agency has purview over “burrowing,” the term generally used to describe a political appointee moving to a career position in the civil service.

Noting that disabled veterans have preference for federal jobs under the law, the Office of Personnel Management in May 2011 flagged the case and “subsequently instructed FDIC to take several corrective actions,” according to a Government Accountability Office report.

Ultimately, however, the office approved the political appointee’s transition to the career job, the report says.

Although political appointees are allowed to make the transition to career federal jobs, under the law they are supposed to go through the same merit-based selection process as other applicants.

The GAO determined that federal agencies didn’t follow procedures to avoid favoritism in hiring a quarter of Obama’s political appointees for career positions. The report sampled the actions of 30 federal agencies in such “conversions” from Jan. 1, 2010, to Oct. 1, 2015.

“The practice of burrowing in threatens the integrity of the federal workforce, where employees need to be hired based on merit and not on partisan political beliefs,” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said in a statement.

“I was particularly disappointed to see the Department of Homeland Security reporting the highest number of appointee-to-career employee conversions,” Johnson said. “It is critical that the administration take steps to ensure fairness and competition in federal service.”

Unlike political appointees, federal workers in the civil service system are hired through a merit system, are difficult to fire, and carry over in changes of administrations, Republican or Democrat.

In other cases, the GAO report says:

• The Department of Education in March 2011 “gave the political appointee an unfair advantage in the hiring process by manipulating the requirements of the career position to align with the employee’s background.”

• In April 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services hired a political appointee “who did not qualify” and “improperly” removed from consideration an applicant with a veterans preference.

• The Food and Drug Administration in December 2012 “applied an overly restrictive definition of specialized experience” that screened out two qualified applicants with veterans preference status before selecting a political appointee.

The GAO, reviewing the 30 federal agencies, found 69 individuals moved from political to career positions over the five years. These agencies did not always get the necessary final approval from the Office of Personnel Management, the report says:

Specifically, 14 of the 30 agencies reported numbers of political conversions to GAO that were different from the numbers that OPM reported to GAO. In most cases, the differences in the two data submissions were off by one conversion except at two agencies—the departments of Homeland Security and Commerce—where they were off by six and two conversions, respectively.

Six Cabinet-level departments and another agency accounted for almost half of the conversions of political appointees to civil service jobs, according to the report. Homeland Security had nine, Justice had seven, Defense and Treasury had five each, and Health and Human Services and the FDIC had four each.

The GAO report continues:

Of the agencies that implemented political conversions during the review period, eight agencies implemented 17 conversions without receiving prior approval from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as required by OPM policy. OPM completed post-appointment reviews for 13 of these 17 political conversions, approving nine and denying four.

It took the Office of Personnel Management about one year to identify conversions it should have reviewed, the report says.

Occasionally, an OPM spokeswoman said, agencies move political appointees into career posts without first submitting the change to the personnel agency for review. These transitions can slip past the proper review process.

“Each year, some cases are not submitted to OPM for pre-appointment review,” the spokeswoman told The Daily Signal in an email, adding:

We usually identify those cases when we run quarterly reports on appointments meeting the criteria for our review. We compare the list of appointments to those cases we reviewed. When we find an appointment we did not review, we notify the employing agency that they must submit the case file to us for a post-appointment review. In other cases, the agencies identify their own error and submit the case to us post-appointment.

The FDIC has not responded to phone and email inquiries from The Daily Signal regarding the specific case of the disabled veteran who was denied a job later given to a political appointee.

The findings should raise concerns about political cronyism, said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

“One of the reasons the federal government has laws on merit-based hiring is to prevent cronyism and political favoritism,” Thune said in a statement. “GAO’s finding that the Obama administration hasn’t consistently followed these rules is troubling.”

In some cases when the Office of Personnel Management determined an agency didn’t follow the rules, it reopened a hiring decision for other applicants, according to the GAO report. In other cases, the personnel office referred the matter for investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an independent investigative agency that primarily safeguards the merit system and government whistleblowers.

The Daily Signal has sought comment from the Office of Personnel Management, which said it would be forthcoming.

About 3,200 political appointees are among the 2.69 million nonmilitary employees of the executive branch. Of those 3,200, 158 were Bill Clinton appointees and 135 were George W. Bush appointees, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

A similar GAO report in June 2010 reviewed conversions to civil service jobs that occurred from May 2005 to May 2009—most of which came under the second term of the Bush administration. It also found lapses in adhering to policy.

Democrats raised significant concerns about conversions in 2008, the final year of the Bush administration, which saw about 26.

In 1883, Congress passed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act to stop raw political appointments, known as the spoils system, from filling all federal government jobs. The law introduced the merit system to hiring practices and made numerous positions untouchable once filled.

Civil service law has been updated several times, but the basics remain the same. The law requires that most federal employees be hired based on skills, knowledge, and ability. The law prohibits favoritism.

Samuel Schumach, press secretary for the Office of Personnel Management, previously told The Daily Signal the agency doesn’t have a way to determine how many Obama political appointees have or will apply for civil service employment. But summarizing the process, he said in an email:

If an agency selects a current or former political appointee (in the last five years), the agency is required to seek Office of Personnel Management review and approval prior to appointing them. [The Office of Personnel Management] will review the hiring action to ensure it is free from political influence and meets merit system principles. If we cannot conclude the action is free from political influence and meets merit system principles, we will deny the request to appoint the individual and may refer the matter to the Office of Special Counsel for further investigation.

The GAO report found that officials did not follow the procedure described by Schumach in one-fourth of the cases reviewed.

Separately, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has asked 23 executive agencies to account for the number of political appointees seeking career government jobs.

“Hiring decisions must be free from political interference, legitimate, and justified,” Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said in a statement. “OPM should fully embrace GAO’s recommendation for a more stringent process to verify all conversions are appropriate. Fair and open competition is central to the integrity of a merit-based federal workforce.” (For more from the author of “How Obama Political Aides Get Preference Over Veterans for Government Jobs” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

4 Times Conservatives Lost a Major Supreme Court Case by a Single Vote

/0 Comments/in , /by

Sunday night’s second presidential debate underscored the importance of the next Supreme Court justice, as the candidates and questioners alike recognized that the fate of the federal courts rests in the next president’s hands.

The high court has been closely divided on many contentious issues in recent years, and the next justice could change the development and application of the law for decades. As former Attorney General Ed Meese has stated, “No president exercises any power more far-reaching, more likely to influence his legacy, than the selection of federal judges.”

Although the Framers of the Constitution envisioned the judiciary as the “least dangerous branch,” the judges who populate its ranks wield tremendous power to decide cases that affect the daily lives of millions of Americans.

While each branch of government has an independent duty to uphold the Constitution, the Supreme Court has grabbed power by declaring that its decisions are the supreme law of the land, and the other branches have largely acceded to these claims. This is why every vote matters in cases before the Supreme Court.

Often, significant cases are decided by just one vote. While the justices agree in many cases, the next president must consider that one person could make a big difference in nearly a quarter of cases that the court decides by a 5-4 margin each term.

Consider some of the important cases that struck a blow to the Constitution over the past 10 years where one justice was the deciding vote:

In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court interpreted the takings clause of the Constitution to allow the government to seize citizens’ homes—not to build a road or fulfill some other public use as is required by the Fifth Amendment, but to transfer the property to a private corporation because it could pay more taxes.

In Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court extended the right of habeas corpus to the Guantanamo Bay detainees, usurping national security authority.

In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court instituted one of the largest tax increases in history when it strained the Affordable Care Act’s text to uphold the individual health care mandate as a valid exercise of Congress’ taxing power.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to marriage that includes same-sex couples in a decision so unmoored from the text of the Constitution that even supporters of the ruling have described it as unintelligible and poorly reasoned.

Now consider some of the significant wins for the Constitution where one justice cast the deciding vote:

In McDonald v. City of Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court overturned Chicago and Washington, D.C.’s, virtual bans on handguns, upholding the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

In Town of Greece v. Galloway and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court respected religious freedom, upholding a town council’s right to begin a meeting with a prayer, and stopping the government from requiring business owners to pay for certain abortion-inducing drugs and devices in their health care plans against their religious beliefs.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court tossed out unconstitutional restrictions on political speech and campaign contributions.

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which set forth an outdated coverage formula that was used to determine which states needed to get preapproval from the federal government before making any changes in their voting laws, was unconstitutional.

On the occasion of nominating Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia, President Ronald Reagan reminded us that Supreme Court justices “must not only be jurists of the highest competence; they must also be attentive to the rights specifically guaranteed in our Constitution and to the proper role of the courts in our democratic system.” The Supreme Court is only one vote away from upholding or rejecting these principles.

To learn more about the proper role of judges in our government, the road to confirmation for those nominated to be judges, and close cases in which a single Supreme Court justice made the difference in cases of incredible significance, check out The Heritage Foundation’s new booklet “Supreme Consequences: How a President’s Bad Judicial Appointments Threaten Your Liberty.“ (For more from the author of “4 Times Conservatives Lost a Major Supreme Court Case by a Single Vote” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FBI, DOJ Roiled by Comey, Lynch Decision to Let Clinton Slide by on Emails, Says Insider

/0 Comments/in , /by

The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”

“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.” (Read more from “FBI, DOJ Roiled by Comey, Lynch Decision to Let Clinton Slide by on Emails, Says Insider” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Mocks ‘Demon’ Talk by Sniffing Himself

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Obama on Tuesday mocked conservative radio host Alex Jones for accusing him and Hillary Clinton of being demons.

“I was reading the other day there’s a guy on the radio who apparently – [Donald] Trump’s on his show frequently – who said me and Hillary demons,” he told listeners at a rally for Clinton in Greensboro, N.C.

“[Jones] said we smell like sulfur,” Obama added, pausing to smell himself as the audience cheered and whistled. “Ain’t that something?”

Obama burst into laughter before criticizing remarks like Jones’ for undermining the harmony between Americans.

“Democracy does not work if you just say stuff like that. Apparently there are people who believe that stuff. I mean, c’mon people.” (Read more from “Obama Mocks ‘Demon’ Talk by Sniffing Himself” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

No Amnesty for 2 ‘Treasonous’ Open-Borders Republicans

/0 Comments/in , /by

Citing their support for illegal immigration and the rising influx of Muslim refugees, one of the nation’s most hawkish immigration lobbying groups has launched a new strategy to remove John McCain, R-Ariz., and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., from office.

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, also called ALIPAC, is endorsing their Democrat opponents in the Nov. 8 general election.

That’s a first for the organization. In its 12-year history ALIPAC has never endorsed a single Democrat.

But it makes sense, said ALIPAC President William Gheen, given the two lawmakers’ persistent support for amnesty for illegals, their support for President Obama’s bulging numbers of Muslim refugees being secretly funneled into hundreds of U.S. cities and towns, and their efforts to elect Hillary Clinton by “undermining the campaign of Donald Trump.”

“If Republicans like McCain and Ryan are going to act like and help Democrats, why not elect Democrats and try for better Republicans next time?” asked Gheen. (Read more from “No Amnesty for 2 ‘Treasonous’ Open-Borders Republicans” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hey Catholics, This Is What Team Hillary Really Thinks of You

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Another Wikileaks email dump came out this week, and there are all sorts of windows into the Clintons’ world that should give Americans pause. This candid look into the liberal mind, and the Clinton campaign psyche, reveals not only the disgust they have for Catholics, but for those who choose to believe in something more than social standing and progressive politics.

The exchange features John Halpin of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank that is part and parcel of the Obama & Clinton world; Jen Palmieri, the communications director for Hillary; John Podesta, chairman of Hillary’s campaign; and longtime Clinton confidant, aide, and former chief of staff for Bill Clinton.

The email chain begins with a subject line: “Conservative Catholicism” with Halpin writing:

Ken Auletta’s latest piece on Murdoch in the New Yorker starts off with the aside that both Murdoch and Robert Thompson, managing editor of the WSJ, are raising their kids Catholic. Friggin’ Murdoch baptized his kids in Jordan where John the Baptist baptized Jesus.

Many of the most powerful elements of the conservative movement are all Catholic (many converts) from the SC and think tanks to the media and social groups.

It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.

“I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion,” Palmieri responded. “Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.”

Had this been conservatives talking about some liberal cause celebre, the media and Planet Clinton would be feasting on it and calling for the heads of all involved. Imagine for a moment if you replaced the actors with conservatives and Catholicism and the conversation topic with Black Lives Matter, LGTB rights, or women. The rebukes would come fast and furious, and with wicked vengeance.

Another email shows Podesta discussing the groups he founded to incite rebellion and schism within the Church, when confronted with the suggestion of a “Catholic Spring” against church doctrine and leadership in favor of “gender equality.”

As conservatives react to these revelations, it is important to not the controversy does not center on the actors in these emails. Rather, it should center around the beliefs being discussed in these email chains.

It is unfathomable to Clinton allies that “enlightened minds” would expose their children to “systematic thought” or “backwards gender relations” that teach a man and wife are the normative family construct. Likewise, these liberals cannot understand that social conservatives or Catholics would believe what they do because they believe it to be true, rather than just “socially acceptable.”

Palmieri seems to insinuate that Catholicism is supposed to be somewhat “liberal” or at least socially acceptable as such. But in doing so, she condemns what these Clinton surrogates have dubbed “conservative Catholicism,” which is really just Catholicism that hasn’t been repurposed towards her party’s political ends.

Podesta puts the cherry on top, when he prods fun at “Thomistic thought” and “subsidiarity” and those who don’t understand them. He seems to say that Catholicism, especially in this conservative form, is nothing more than a set of misunderstood ancient beliefs that are mere window dressing for high society types on the Right to justify their “backwards” views on marriage, the family, abortion, contraception, etc.

It goes to show that tolerance is a one-way street for progressives. Liberals don’t actually want tolerance, acceptance, and free thought. What they want is a society constructed on intellectual pillars of progressivism. Thomism is an archaic “systematic” thought construct, but Alinskyism is enlightenment. Subsidiarity is a tool of fools, while Rawlsian justice is the pathway to utopia.

Brian Burch of CatholicVote summed it up best saying:

Everyone has a unique faith journey, and it’s just insulting to make blanket statements maligning people’s motives for converting to another faith tradition. Had Palmieri spoken this way about other groups she would dismissed. Catholics will be watching Hillary Clinton to see whether she thinks our religious faith should be respected, or whether it’s fair game to mock us.

Just as impoverished in this email exchange is the recipients’ view of religion. Theology is not something to be judged on its claims and pathway to the truth, but rather or on how “socially acceptable” its manifestations are. Political views shouldn’t flow from revealed truth; rather, revealed truth must be contorted until it matches political agendas.

It doesn’t matter that what they call “Christian Democracy” in the American context which, as R.R. Reno explains in his recent book, was little more than an outgrowth of liberal Protestantism that was quickly secularized and co-opted into the modern progressive fold, to the detriment of Christian truth. It doesn’t matter those “backwards” ideals carry with them millennia of philosophical tradition that precede and supersede the Left’s modern and post-modern social experiments. What matters is what you can talk about at a cocktail party, and how it gets along with everyone else’s plans for the Republic.

The truly tragic thing is that the mentality is more widespread than any serious person of faith would like to admit. The incomprehensibility of objective truth believed by faith, near-universal on the American Left, strikes to some of the most important issues of our time.

The fact that nuns have to go to the Supreme Court to defend their conscience rights against a contraception mandate, and that churches in Massachusetts are now suing for thei basic religious rights against a so-called “non-discrimination” order speaks volumes. How else would we end up with a Democrat presidential candidate who believes that religious beliefs have to be changed to accommodate her abortion agenda? How else would we have her running mate, merely the latest in a long line of “Catholic” Democrats whose “personal” beliefs on abortion dare not interfere with their shilling for the party line?

And this theological poverty has also left our discussions on conscience to infect our discourse on national security. At a panel discussion last month, Dr. Sebastian Gorka explained how an inability to “get” religion is crippling our efforts to fight jihadism.

“If you don’t have faith, yourself, you will never understand our enemy; you will never understand the logic of a suicide bomber,” he explained at the 2016 Values Voters Summit. “The trouble is that we have a political elite on the Left — and, unfortunately, sometimes on the Right — that does not take faith seriously. If they go to church or temple, it’s a cool networking thing with the coffee and doughnuts afterward.”

Unfortunately for Catholics, and most likely other supposedly “backwards” faith groups, a Hillary Clinton win in November meansthis mentality is only going to march further and more boldly into our lives. When it makes perfect sense to sue nuns for not buying the pill and openly mock someone for having their child Baptized in the River Jordan, it is truly frightening to imagine what comes next. (For more from the author of “Hey Catholics, This Is What Team Hillary Really Thinks of You” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

InterVarsity Learns That You Cannot Straddle the Fence When It Comes to Homosexuality

/0 Comments/in , /by

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship is one of the leading campus ministries, and its publishing arm, InterVarsity Press, is one of the top Christian publishers. But this fine ministry is learning the hard way that, when it comes to homosexuality, you cannot straddle the fence.

In a moment, I’ll explain exactly why I say that InterVarsity has tried to straddle the fence when it comes to homosexuality, but first, here’s the relevant background.

Last week, InterVarsity announced “that it will begin dismissing employees who disagree with its theological stance on human sexuality starting on November 11.” As reported on The Atlantic, “Rather than force employees to sign a document outlining their position, the organization is asking employees to out themselves. Once the employees inform their supervisor of their personal views, the ‘involuntary terminations’ will be triggered.”

From the standpoint of the historic, biblical faith, there is nothing in the least bit controversial about this, and InterVarsity is actually calling on its employees to act with integrity: If they do not agree with the ministry’s moral and spiritual standards, standards they agreed to uphold when joining the ministry, they should immediately resign.

As for the specific issue of men having sexual and romantic relationships with other men and women having sexual and romantic relationships with other women, this is a non-negotiable and it represents a line that must be drawn in the sand.

Not surprisingly, given today’s confused and compromised spiritual climate, there has been a backlash from within InterVarsity.

The Backlash

As Jonathan Merritt reports on the Religion News Service, “40 authors in InterVarsity’s publishing house stable including Shane Claiborne, David Dark, Christena Cleveland, Ian Morgan Cron, and Chris Heuertz are calling on IVCF head Tom Lin to immediately replace the policy with one that makes space for opposing views. The letter indicates that the signers ‘do not all share the same theological or political views’ but ‘are united in our concern for the dignity and care of our fellow Christians whose jobs are threatened by your policy.’”

Also this week, “a public protest letter from ‘concerned ICVF alumni’ was posted on Change.org and addressed to Tom Lin and IVCF’s board of trustees. Similar to the authors’ letter, this petition stated that signers ‘hold a range of beliefs with regard to marriage and human sexuality.’”

The protest letter specifically states that, “we would be remiss not to address the particular pain, rejection, and fear that this policy has caused lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex members of InterVarsity in the days since its publication. Being LGBTQI in InterVarsity has never been easy, even for those who agree with its traditional position, but this policy places additional burdens on our siblings in Christ who too often have been marginalized or outcast among Christian communities. Whatever our disagreements, InterVarsity can and must do better.”

To be sure, we are called to exercise compassion towards brothers and sisters who struggle with same-sex attraction and gender identity confusion, walking together with them as they seek wholeness and pursue holiness. But those who claim that you can follow Jesus and engage in homosexual practice must be lovingly corrected and, if they refuse to repent, put out of the fellowship, in particular if they are living this out themselves. That’s what love requires.

And it is here that InterVarsity has brought some of these troubles on itself (and I say this with the utmost respect for this important ministry).

InterVarsity and Andrew Marin

In 2009, InterVarsity published Andrew Marin’s book Love Is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community, a book which at one and the same time was incredible and terrible, a book that everyone needed to read and everyone needed to avoid.

To explain, Marin’s recounting of the painful experiences of many LGBT people and their sense of being hated by God and rejected by the church is powerful and moving, something that every caring Christian should read. I remember one particular night when I had to put the book down, get alone in my room, and fall to my knees and weep. These stories were absolutely heartbreaking, moving me to tears of love for LGBT individuals.

On the other hand, the scriptural section of the book was absolutely abysmal, representing, in my mind, the worst treatment of scripture I have ever seen in a book published by a major evangelical publisher.

The clear words of the Bible prohibiting homosexual practice were twisted beyond recognition by Andrew Marin – again, I have never seen that which is so clear be made into that is which is so obscure – to the point that Prof. Robert Gagnon, the foremost authority on the Bible and homosexuality, wrote a lengthy review that absolutely savaged Marin’s treatment of Scripture.

Marin’s response to Gagnon, to which Gagon replied, further underscored the bankruptcy of his scriptural and moral arguments.

Although other examples could be cited, this is the most glaring example of InterVarsity giving major exposure to an author who refuses to say that homosexual practice is sin (he has not responded to several invitations to join me on the air to clarify his position) and who intentionally dances around the issue when addressing what the Bible clearly says. (Again, see Gagnon on this; there’s no real dispute about Marin avoiding these issues.)

And so, while InterVarsity did well to call for churches to reach out with sensitivity and compassion to the LGBT community and to recognize the struggles experienced by many true believers, they erred seriously by putting forth the mixed message of Marin and others, a message that surely was felt in InterVarsity’s campus ministry as well.

Now, they are paying the price, as others who feel that Christians can differ when it comes to fundamentals of sexual morality are calling on InterVarsity to reverse its position, thereby committing spiritual suicide.

There is, then, only one way forward for InterVarsity in the days ahead. They must hold the line without wavering, not backing down or apologizing for the policy they have announced, taking whatever flack or backlash comes their way. And they must be careful not to put out mixed messages in the future.

If they do, the blessing of God will be with them. If they fold here, they will cease to be a relevant ministry in the years to come.

Let’s pray for the leaders of InterVarsity to do what is right and for those who oppose them in the name of Jesus to see the error of their ways. (For more from the author of “InterVarsity Learns That You Cannot Straddle the Fence When It Comes to Homosexuality” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Firms Charged in California for Profiting off of Baby Part Sales

/0 Comments/in , /by

Orange County, California District Attorney Tony Rackauckas has filed charges against two companies he says illegally profited off of the sale of fetal tissue.

In a press conference held on Wednesday, Rackauckas laid out what he called a “profit-making … scheme” conducted by DaVinci Biosciences and sister company DV Biologics. According to Rackauckas, employees used discounts “to close a sale,” and prices changed to match market value of fetal tissue.

“This is not about politics,” Rackauckas told The Orange County Register before the press event. “This is about a clear violation of the law.”

According to The Register, the lawsuit highlights an employee writing in an email that “…it costs us roughly $25 per unit to manufacture, and we are selling from $170.” Additionally:

From 2009 to 2015, the companies collected $56,678 in “packing and handling” fees marked up by roughly 50 percent over the actual cost of packaging and handling, according to the suit. Employees were paid a commission on profits they earned from the packing and handling charges, the lawsuit says.

In a press statement, Center for Medical Progress founder David Daleiden said that Planned Parenthood also acted illegally. “The wheels of justice are beginning to turn against Planned Parenthood and their corrupt business partners in the illicit trade in aborted baby body parts.”

According to Daleiden, “For eight years, Planned Parenthood supplied aborted baby hearts, lungs, brains, and intestines to DV Biologics, which DV Biologics then resold for profit. In exchange for merely providing access to aborted baby body parts, Planned Parenthood received kickback contributions from DaVinci Biosciences over the course of their eight-year contract.”

Rackauckas disagreed, telling a reporter at the press conference that Planned Parenthood donated bodies. Another reporter asked whether the donations were legal, to which the DA replied that not only are donations for research allowed, but “our evidence indicates that, no, no money was exchanged between these companies and Planned Parenthood.”

“We’re not indicating Planned Parenthood did anything unlawful,” Rackauckas clarified. His office is seeking a $1.6 million fine against the companies.

House Select Panel on Infant Lives Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said in a statement, “Based on the evidence uncovered during our Panel’s investigation, we have been deeply troubled about the relationship between DaVinci and PPOSBC, which appears to have created a market for the donation of human fetal tissue.”

Blackburn continued: “As a result, our Panel is continuing to look at connections between Planned Parenthood and tissue procurement companies. The lawsuit filed by the Orange County DA shows that there is also broad support at the state and local level to uncover the truth about what is going on in the abortion and fetal tissue industries.”

Earlier this year, Daleiden’s group released an undercover video highlighting activity that led to Rackauckas’ investigation. In that video, a Center for Medical Progress investigator was told by the medical director of Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties that the abortion giant attempts to use ultrasound to create circumstances where a baby’s parts can be harvested.

Lila Rose of Live Action also commended the Orange County DA. “I hope this sets a precedent for prosecutors and law enforcement across the nation.” she said in a statement, “Abortion is a barbaric and cruel practice, and it should come as no surprise that those callous enough to profit off killing defenseless children in the womb would allegedly profit off selling their organs piecemeal.”

A phone call requesting comment from Da Vinci Biosciences was not immediately returned. (For more from the author of “Firms Charged in California for Profiting off of Baby Part Sales” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.