The Left Is Fascist. Its War on Free Speech Proves That.

LifeSiteNews has reported on the most recent effort by leftist elites to silence free speech. To mark the festive, traditional French holiday, the “Global Day of Action for Access to Safe and Legal Abortion,” France’s minister for “Families, Childhood and Women’s Rights” Laurence Rossignol

unveiled plans to criminalize those [web]sites that aim to dissuade women from obtaining a “voluntary interruption of pregnancy,” a procedure that is 100 percent state-funded in France during the first 12 weeks of gestation. Offenders will incur prison sentences of up to two years and fines up to 30,000 euro (about $33,650) when the plan becomes law.

Arrested for “Maligning Islam”

It isn’t just Frenchmen who want to save babies from abortionists who are feeling the leftist cork stuffed into the mouths. It’s also Austrian women who want to protect themselves from sexually aggressive and violent Muslim colonists. As The Daily Caller reports:

When the migrant crisis transformed ordinary life in Austria, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff — a self-described housewife in Austria — held innocuous citizen seminars teaching about Islam. An aspiring young journalist secretly taped her remarks, leading to Sabaditsch-Wolff’s prosecution for impugning Islam. [emphasis added]

Here’s an sample of the “hate speech” which landed Sabaditsch-Wolff in court, drawn from her recent remarks in Dallas:

For the past nine months Austria and the rest of Western Europe have undergone a profound transformation, one that will inevitably change the face of Europe permanently. I refer, of course, to the migration crisis, which began in earnest last summer, and is continuing as I speak to you. As the weather warms up and spring gives way to summer, we may expect the crisis to intensify even further. More than a million immigrants arrived in Austria and Germany via the “Balkan route” last year, and at least as many are expected to come this year — probably significantly more.

These migrants are generally referred to by our political leaders and the media as “refugees,” but this is hardly the case. Not only are most of them from countries where there is no war to flee from, but they are also overwhelmingly young Muslim men, of fighting age. In other words, the current crisis is actually an instance of Islamic hijra, or migration into infidel lands to advance the cause of Islam. The hijra goes hand in hand with jihad — once enough Muslim migrants have settled in the target country, violent jihad can begin.

Does that sound like incitement to violence to you? Doesn’t matter. We’re way, way past arguments about shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. This is more like outlawing fire extinguishers because they might be offensive to arsonists. The left wants to make it impossible even to express any dissent to its increasingly unhinged program of social transformation.

The Left No Longer Even Pretends to Value Freedom

That’s the only possible explanation for a law like New York City’s, which forces employers to use made-up transgender pronouns like “ze” and “hir” or face “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct,” according to the Washington Post.

Progressives around the world are dropping the pretense that they care about freedom of speech, expression, or association. You will hear academics in humanities departments — as I did, while finishing my Ph.D. in English lit — denounce ideas such as “pluralism” and “free debate” as the tools of the “privileged” to keep their hold on power. Such “bourgeois” relics of a bygone era must be unmasked and discarded, in favor of paternalist efforts by institutions to aggressively reshape the beliefs of students and citizens. You know, along the lines that Hillary Clinton had in mind, when in 2015 she claimed that women’s reproductive rights required that Christians be brainwashed into favoring abortion. Or as she put it, according to LifeNews:

“Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced,” Clinton said, using the euphemism for abortion.

“Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton argued. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Leftists rarely even talk about “freedom” anymore, except now and then in a ritualistic sense. Or else they take the word and turn it inside out, to mean its exact opposite — as when they promise to keep a college campus “free” of “offensive” speech that might serve as a “microaggression” that violates the “safe space” of their students.

Fighting Thoughtcrime on Campus

That was the pretext used by “Catholic” DePaul University to ban from campus the calm, rational conservative speaker Ben Shapiro — treating him as if he were some violent thug with a bullhorn shouting threats at passersby. Of course, violent thugs shouting threats at passersby are entirely welcome on campus, so long as they serve leftist causes that meet elite approval. So Black Lives Matter can terrorize passersby caught wearing Trump hats. While public outcry forced the University of Missouri to fire Melissa Click — a journalism professor who was filmed calling for “muscle” to terrorize student journalists — have no fear! The Jesuit-run Gonzaga University has honored Click’s sacrifice by stepping up and hiring her. The Jesuits, you will recall, are the religious order that vice-presidential candidate Tim Kaine volunteered to help, as they ran guns to Communist terrorists in Honduras from the totalitarian Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. At least we know the kind of government whose idea of freedom meets their approval.

Toss the Deplorables’ Heads Into a Basket

The best, most comprehensive look at the left’s war on personal freedom can be found in Angelo Codevilla’s recent essay, “After the Republic,” where he notes:

A commission in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts reported that even a church may be forced to operate its bathrooms according to gender self-identification because it “could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the general public.” California came very close to mandating that Catholic schools admit homosexual and transgender students or close down. The Justice Department is studying how to prosecute on-line transactions such as vacation home rental site Airbnb, Inc., that fall afoul of its evolving anti-discrimination standards.

Codevilla unflinchingly pinpoints exactly why progressives are willing to toss Constitutional protections and individual rights onto the ash-heap. Progressives believe, and are increasingly willing to say, that

America’s constitutional republic had given the American people too much latitude to be who they are, that is: religiously and socially reactionary, ignorant, even pathological, barriers to Progress. Thankfully, an enlightened minority exists with the expertise and the duty to disperse the religious obscurantism, the hypocritical talk of piety, freedom, and equality, which excuses Americans’ racism, sexism, greed, and rape of the environment. As we progressives take up our proper responsibilities, Americans will no longer live politically according to their prejudices; they will be ruled administratively according to scientific knowledge.

Progressivism’s programs have changed over time. But its disdain for how other Americans live and think has remained fundamental. More than any commitment to principles, programs, or way of life, this is its paramount feature. The media reacted to Hillary Clinton’s remark that “half of Trump’s supporters could be put into a ‘basket of deplorables’” as if these sentiments were novel and peculiar to her. In fact, these are unremarkable restatements of our ruling class’s perennial creed.

(For more from the author of “The Left Is Fascist. Its War on Free Speech Proves That.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

AfterBern: Trump’s Socialist Policies Aren’t Working on the ‘Bernie or Bust’ Crowd

It’s been a few months since Hillary Clinton clinched the Democratic party nomination, and it might be high time for the Trump campaign to realize that trying to siphon off her former intraparty opponent’s supporters might be a fruitless endeavor to say the least.

On Thursday, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump once again attempted to court socialists on the campaign trail, saying that his economic policies should appeal to supporters of former Democrat candidate and unabashed ‘democratic’ socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. (F, 16%), making the latest in months-long string of appeals to bring the disaffected aboard the Trump train.

Trump has been trying to win over the ‘after Berners,’ disaffected Sanders supporters, for a few months now, but his approach recently has shifted from personality to policy.

Trump’s initial line of appeal to former Sanders supporters was based primarily off similarities on trade and their respective anti-establishment narratives.

In an April interview with Fortune magazine, Trump pointed to a short list of areas on which he and the socialist senator overlapped: “One thing we have in common is trade. We both know the US is getting ripped off by trade,” he said. “The difference is I can do something about it and he can’t.”

“We’re talking about free markets but the problem is, we’re open, but the rest of the world isn’t open,” he continued, further outlining the two’s similarities on issues of keeping corporations in the U.S. and their views of currency manipulation.

“The only way you’re going to get jobs back into this country is, number one, [China and Mexico] cannot devalue their currencies, which they’re killing us with. Number two—and very importantly—we’re going to have to use the threat of taxation in order to keep jobs here and also in order to get jobs back.”

In June, Trump said that he and his camp would welcome “Bernie or bust” voters who had “been left out in the cold” after Clinton’s primary victory “with open arms.”

The use of this common narrative of a “rigged system” common to supporters of both candidates would be bolstered a month later by foul play allegations at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, which was punctuated by the DNC email hack.

The thousands of leaked emails revealed a conspiratorial effort among party officials to sabotage Sanders’ underdog campaign during the primary, leading to the resignation of then-party chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, R-Fla. (F, 8%) and giving Trump another avenue to make his case to the former Sanders camp.

“The system’s rigged and [Wasserman Schultz] was rigging the system for Hillary,” said Trump at a rally in North Carolina, in the wake of the developments. He also made note of his and Sanders’ similar protectionist agendas on trade policy.

“[Sanders] and I are similar in trade,” he told the supporters. “The difference is I can do something about it. I’m going to bring jobs back to North Carolina … The trade agreements we have are one-sided agreements for other countries, and it’s disgraceful.”

In fact, for all of the first presidential debate’s bluster and personality squabbling, government-funded child care was one of the multiple policy points upon which Trump and Democrat Party nominee Hillary Clinton publicly agreed on stage.

Trump also made his case to Sanders’ supporters based on the Clinton campaign’s choice of Tim Kaine as running mate, due to the Virginia senator’s support for NAFTA and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership.

And Trump does have some of the shared policies to make the case. In addition to his anti-free-market stances on the minimum wage and international trade, Trump has also added Big Government child care to his portfolio of promises.

A few weeks ago, ostensibly at his daughter Ivanka’s behest, Trump rolled out a policy proposal that, among its other provisions, includes a socialist, taxpayer-funded maternity leave program.

Unfortunately for the Trump campaign, the months-long effort isn’t working at all. As it turns out, running to the left on economic policies isn’t buy the candidate the socialist defectors that they’d hoped for. Rather, what it actually appears to be doing is turning Republicans away from the free market.

According to August data analysis at FiveThirtyEight, most of those Bernie supporters ended up falling along the Democratic Party line. But, even if the remaining holdouts could all find their way to become nose-holders, they don’t have the numbers to do much for Trump anyway.

“The Sanders holdouts aren’t that large a group. If they were forced to choose only between Clinton and Trump, the vast majority would choose Clinton and yet they would add only about 1 percentage point to her overall margin over Trump, according to [August] polls,” explains FiveThirtyEight’s Harry Enten. “That could matter in a close election, but the election isn’t looking all that close at the moment.”

Some factors, however, have changed. Thanks to pneumonia-gate, ongoing email releases, and a list of other things working against Clinton, the polls have tightened, and — at the time of this writing — the RealClearPolitics spread has Clinton up a mere 2.9 points.

But still, it doesn’t look like Bernie holdouts are going to line up behind the New York billionaire anytime soon. If it hasn’t happened by this point, it’s probably not going to happen.

Meanwhile, the GOP candidate’s protectionist rhetoric and departure from free trade seems to brought an alarming number of Republicans along for the ride. A recent Politico-Harvard poll found that 85 percent of GOP voters believe that free trade policies have cost more jobs than they have created … contrasted against a mere 54 percent of Democrats.

But, who knows? This could really be the start of something. After all, if Donald Trump’s efforts could turn such a significant swath of the former free market, small government party against the concept of free trade, who knows what a majority of Republican voters will think about socialist maternity leave in a few weeks? (For more from the author of “AfterBern: Trump’s Socialist Policies Aren’t Working on the ‘Bernie or Bust’ Crowd” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judicial Amnesty? Federal Judge Indicates He Might Revive Obama’s DAPA Amnesty

Could a federal judge pave the road to reviving Obama’s DAPA amnesty in most of the country? Are we about to see a mass judicial amnesty on top of Obama’s existing executive amnesties that are still in operation?

As we reported in August, an illegal alien recipient of Obama’s DACA status sued in federal court to have Obama’s DAPA amnesty (which renewed DACA applications for three years) reinstated. The illegal alien, represented by the Soros-funded National Immigration Law Center (NILC), is asking the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of New York to ignore the Fifth Circuit’s injunction on Obama’s amnesty because, in their estimation, the injunction should not apply outside of the 26 states that sued the administration, given that the Supreme Court was deadlocked at a national level. The consequence of this decision would open up DAPA for New York City and potentially in many other states.

At the time, we suggested that it would be absurd for a judge to grant standing to an illegal alien to sue for affirmative citizen privileges on an illegal executive amnesty that even the administration is no longer pursuing. It’s bad enough to rule that Obama has the authority to override the sovereignty of the nation and the plenary power of inviolable congressional statutes. But to proactively order the administration to revive its executive amnesty — at the behest of an illegal alien — would be mind-blowing to even liberal justices of previous generations, as I demonstrate in chapter 4 of Stolen Sovereignty.

Sadly, the men in robes on the federal bench ain’t your grandfather’s judicial activists. They literally believe that the Constitution and statutes are amendable to their geopolitical world view. It now appears that Judge Nicholas Garaufis, a Clinton appointee, is not only willing to grant Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal, an illegal alien from Mexico, standing to sue for citizen rights, but he indicated his personal sympathies and inclination to rule in Vidal’s favor.

Here is the report from Law360 (subscription required) on the initial hearing:

A New York federal judge has indicated a willingness to break from a Texas court on Thursday in a case seeking to exempt certain New York residents from the block against the president’s executive actions on immigration, saying he had “no intention” of “marching behind in the parade,” according to a transcript. […]

“I don’t know what’s going on out there [in] Texas on the border, but I know what’s going on in New York,” said Judge Garaufis, according to a transcript of an initial hearing held Thursday. “And I’m very concerned about it, and I have absolutely no intention of simply marching behind in the parade that’s going on out there in Texas, if this person has rights here.”

What right does a judge have to be concerned with illegal aliens? Ironically, the plaintiff is actually suing the Obama administration for NOT following through with its own egregious executive action in the other states. Yet, when the lawyer for the DOJ complained to Judge Garaufis about their untenable situation, the judicial tyrant responded, “I sympathize with your problem, but I do not sympathize with the idea that I am hamstrung in dealing with an issue involving individual rights and including the right to go make a living and have a life as an immigrant in the United States.”

Freeze frame right there!

This is the constitutional crisis we face. Courts think that they have the power to not only change the Constitution and statutes, but force an executive to enact a revolutionary executive action and grant standing to an illegal in order to tickle their social sensibilities. Who are we to “hamstring” them from getting what they want by any means?!

t would be scandalous enough for a judge to grant standing to a plaintiff in order to force the Executive Branch to enact any executive action, even as it relates to American citizens. But to grant such standing to an illegal alien to sue for affirmative benefits who, under the most settled aspect of American law and sovereignty must be deported, is beyond comprehension. Yet, this judge believes this man has individual rights and calls him an “immigrant” as if he’s here with the consent of the citizenry. If transgenderism could be applied to jurisprudence, it would look something like this.

Moreover, as Dale Wilcox of the Immigration Reform Law Institute points out, the injunction has to be applied nationwide because “nothing would stop the millions of illegal aliens in Texas (and Louisiana and Alabama) going out of state to apply for and receive DAPA-benefits” in a state like New York (if the judge reinstates the program). That alien could then return home and force one of the state’s that received injunctive relief to issue a driver’s license.

To make matters worse, consider the following warped juxtaposition: sovereign states, law enforcement, and individual taxpayers are denied standing to sue the administration when it manifestly violates Congressional immigration statutes. States, towns, communities, civil services, and the criminal justice system are then flooded with illegal aliens, often violent ones. Yet, individuals in this country without the consent of the people can obtain standing to sue the administration for NOT taking action to violate Congress’ plenary power over immigration.

Stolen Sovereignty, indeed!

As I warn in my book, if the courts are not stripped of their power to adjudicate cases granting illegal aliens rights, there are already enough lower court judges who would create an affirmative right to immigrate and nullify our national sovereignty — the most profound manifestation of what Justice Scalia called “social transformation without representation.”

The courts are engaging in nullification and civil disobedience. That Congress sits idly while lower court judges, which are created and controlled by Congress, subvert our system of governance, enlarge their role, nullify congressional statutes, ignore 200 years of case law, and shred the preamble of the Declaration of Independence — which calls for governance by the consent of the government (citizenship by consent) — is something our Founders could never have envisioned in their worst nightmares.

If Congress refuses to use Article III Sec. 2 to take immigration away from the courts or use the power of the purse to defund adjudication that violates our sovereignty, the people and the states must rise up and ignore the courts. As Robert Bork said 20 years ago, “[T]o the objection that a rejection of a court’s authority would be civil disobedience, the answer is that a court that issues orders without authority engages in an equally dangerous form of civil disobedience.” And at the time, Bork wasn’t even confronted with the stolen sovereignty and mandated transgenderism we face today. (For more from the author of “Judicial Amnesty? Federal Judge Indicates He Might Revive Obama’s DAPA Amnesty” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Busted: Chelsea Clinton Spotted Boarding Private Jet Headed to ‘Clean Energy’ Event

When you think of “clean energy” in the context of travel, what comes to mind? Public transportation? Carpooling? Flying commercially for long-distance trips?

For Chelsea Clinton, it’s a private jet. This week, Hillary Clinton’s equally liberal, but slightly more charming daughter attended a series of campaign events in North Carolina on behalf of the Democratic presidential nominee, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

After making two separate appearances Wednesday at events in Greenville, N.C., one of Clinton’s last stops was a “clean energy roundtable” … to which she rode in her private jet. The roundtable discussion was held in Asheville — just a five-hour drive from Greenville, according to the Free Beacon, who cited video footage of Clinton boarding the gas-guzzling aircraft.

Based on this latest episode, it would appear as if the Clinton Campaign is doing next to nothing to fulfill its goal of becoming “carbon neutral.” Last year, the campaign announced its commitment to “offsetting the carbon footprint of the campaign and that includes travel.” The pledge came after the former secretary of state was criticized for … yup, flying to an event in a private jet.

But please, Hillary, tell us more about your commitment to “clean energy.” (For more from the author of “Busted: Chelsea Clinton Spotted Boarding Private Jet Headed to ‘Clean Energy’ Event” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

She Was Raped at 22. Now She Advocates for Women to Have Choice to Carry a Gun.

Amanda Collins had never planned on becoming a Second Amendment advocate. But on Oct. 22, 2007, when she was just 22 years old, her life would change forever. “I lived through the worst fear that I had had up until that point,” Collins, who’s now a mother of three, told The Daily Signal. “What happened was that while I was a student at the University of Nevada Reno, I was brutally raped.”

At the time, Collins said she obtained her concealed carry permit, but wasn’t allowed to carry a gun on campus. Had she been carrying a firearm that day, Collins believes the outcome could have been different.

Nine years later, with Collins’ convicted rapist now sitting on death row for raping and killing another victim in Nevada, she advocates for women’s right to choose. But when Collins’ talks about “choice,” she isn’t referring to the issue of abortion. Instead, Collins is referring to the right to choose how to defend herself. (For more from the author of “She Was Raped at 22. Now She Advocates for Women to Have Choice to Carry a Gun.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Top Senators Want to Know About Obama’s Push to OK New Citizens to Vote

The branch manager for the Houston office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services seemed clear about the reason and timing for asking staff to work overtime to push through more citizenship applications.

“The field office due to the election year needs to process as many of their N-400 cases as possible between now and FY 2016,” the manager said in an email to staff dated July 21, 2016, and referring to applications for citizenship called N-400 forms.

The email message from the Customs and Immigration Services supervisor offered overtime, including weekends, as an incentive to process more applications:

If you have cases in this category or other pending, you are encouraged to take advantage of the OT if you can. This will be an opportunity to move your pending naturalization cases. If you have not volunteered for OT, please consider and let me know if you are interested.

In Congress, Republican lawmakers are concerned this is a rerun from 20 years ago. In 1996, congressional Republicans accused the Clinton administration of rushing through the citizenship process to register new voters, many likely to vote Democrat, as part of a program called Citizenship USA.

The manager’s email to Customs and Immigration Services employees was made public by the offices of Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis.

Such an apparent rush to citizenship is a particular concern to the senators because of a report from the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general that found Customs and Immigration Services granted citizenship to almost 900 individuals with deportation orders who used false names.

Politics has nothing to do with increased processing of citizenship applications, according to Obama administration officials.

“USCIS’s goal is to process applications for naturalization within five to seven months, regardless of external events such as elections,” Department of Homeland Security spokesman Shin Inouye told The Daily Signal in an email, referring to U.S. Customs and Immigration Services. Inouye added:

USCIS uses statistical forecasting models to plan for the potential increased volume of work. USCIS anticipated that there would be a spike in applications this year, as we usually see in an election year, but the increase in N-400 applications has exceeded expectations.

The agency “certainly encourages our naturalized citizens to be active participants in our democracy,” Inouye said. “However, like other citizens, no new U.S. citizen is required to register to vote, or participate in any election.”

More evidence is needed than a single email, but the matter warrants investigation, said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Study, which advocates strong enforcement of immigration law.

“If you look at the whole country, these are not many votes,” Krikorian told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “But a few thousand can make a lot of difference.” He said:

[George W.] Bush won Florida with 500 votes [in 2000]. Al Franken won his Minnesota Senate seat by just a few hundred votes. If it’s close, a really small number of improper voters can make a big difference. Apart from that, there is the principle that there should be higher standards for citizenship.

The two Senate committee chairmen sent a letter Sept. 21 to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to inquire about what appeared to be a rush. Grassley and Johnson write:

We write to express serious concern about an apparent push by your department to rush the adjudication of naturalization applications before the upcoming presidential election, presumably in an attempt to create as many new citizen voters as possible. …

Your department seems intent on approving as many naturalization cases as quickly as possible at a time when it should instead be putting on the brakes and reviewing past adjudications, especially in light of this week’s Office of Inspector General report that found USCIS granted U.S. citizenship to at least 858 individuals from “special interest” countries (i.e. countries that are of concern to the national security of the United States) or countries with high rates of immigration fraud, who had final deportation orders under another identity.

“We sincerely hope history is not repeating itself,” Grassley and Johnson write, noting the Clinton administration’s actions 20 years ago.

In 1996, congressional investigators found a letter from a Chicago alderman to the White House, saying its Citizenship USA program could “provide the Democrats with a strategic advantage” and that “people stuck in Chicago’s naturalization bottleneck represent thousands of potential voters.”

Helle Dale, an immigrant from Denmark, won her approval for citizenship in 1996, that same year. Dale recalls the time between her application and an interview was “insanely fast” under the Citizenship USA initiative overseen by then-Vice President Al Gore, and says she believes history is repeating itself.

Dale, a former journalist who is now a senior fellow for public diplomacy at The Heritage Foundation, says that politicizing the citizenship process would be highly unethical.

“It may not be illegal, but it is a national security concern,” Dale told The Daily Signal. “I really think, because of an election campaign, to rush through the citizenship process is unconscionable.”

It seems obvious that the Obama administration is trying to register more Democrats, said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, which advocates stronger enforcement of immigration laws.

“Naturalization as a U.S. citizen is not supposed to be used as a political tool,” Mehlman told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “Obviously, the administration wouldn’t be doing this if they didn’t think it could make a positive difference for their party in some states.” (For more from the author of “What Top Senators Want to Know About Obama’s Push to OK New Citizens to Vote” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

No Budget? This Senator Says That Should Mean Pay Cuts for Politicians, Staff

After less than two years in Congress, Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., thinks he’s figured out what’s needed to fix the cumbersome way lawmakers fund the federal government: teeth.

More specifically, the freshman senator from Georgia wants members of both the Senate and the House and their staff to suffer “severe consequences” if Congress fails to pass a budget. He proposes mandatory pay cuts and canceled recesses as a way to keep the lawmakers on track.

A successful businessman, Perdue admitted that a smaller paycheck probably wouldn’t hurt him or many of his wealthy Senate colleagues. But he told reporters Thursday that lawmakers “don’t want to see their staff blown up.”

That’s a harsh but necessary consequence for Congress as the nation faces a looming debt crisis, Perdue said as he released the broad strokes of his plan to overhaul the budget process.

A member of the Senate Budget Committee, Perdue says his proposal is more of a prerequisite than prescription for dealing with the nation’s $19 trillion in debt.

“Right now, we have a budget crisis,” he said. “Fixing the budget process will not solve the debt crisis, but we will not solve the debt crisis unless and until we address the dysfunction in our budget process.”

Perdue would scrap the 1974 Budget Act—which he says has worked correctly only four times in over 42 years—by breaking down the wall between authorizing and appropriations committees.

That would mean merging appropriations subcommittees, which allocate funds, with committees that work on the policy.

Other proposed big changes include transforming the budget into a piece of legislation that must be signed into law. Currently the budget serves as a sort of spending blueprint that Congress agrees to but never sends to the president for his signature. As a result, the budget isn’t binding.

And Perdue’s plan would require Congress to add nondiscretionary spending—such as Social Security and Medicare—to the budget.

To deal with the increased workload, the plan would give lawmakers more time by moving the start of the fiscal year from Oct. 1 to Jan. 1.

The Daily Signal obtained a fact sheet of the proposed plan, though the text of the coming bill hasn’t been finalized.

Perdue’s office said the senator has been working on the plan for months with the blessing of Senate Budget Chairman Michael Enzi, R-Wyo., and the cooperation of House Budget Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga.

But the initial details were met with skepticism from some budget experts on personnel and policy grounds.

“I think Sen. Purdue is exactly right to call for reform and shift focus to the major spending categories on autopilot,” said Paul Winfree, director of the Thomas Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

“However, I worry that moving the budget year to coincide with the calendar year will only reduce transparency by shifting the annual appropriations debates to between Thanksgiving and Christmas for a procrastinating Congress,” Winfree said.

“It’s a terrible, terrible, terrible idea to think that you can somehow produce legislation by docking the pay of staff,” Jim Dyer, formerly the top Republican aide on the House Appropriations Committee, told the Atlanta-Journal Constitution. “What you will do is send the staff off looking for other jobs.”

Shortly after the Senate passed a stopgap spending measure known as a continuing resolution Wednesday afternoon, Perdue previewed the plan from the floor, followed by eight senators including Enzi and Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn.

“We really don’t have a budget process. I mean, to even call what we do a budget, per most human beings’ understanding of what a budget is, is obviously not realistic,” Corker said. “We have to, in essence, get a process in place that actually works. It’s impossible for the process we have today to work. Today is a perfect example of that, right?”

In the Senate, Perdue has tried to leverage his business acumen during the legislative process, regularly mentioning his commercial background.

A former Fortune 500 executive at Reebok and Dollar General, Perdue said that when developing the plan he looked to the examples of businesses, states, and foreign countries.

In a floor speech, Enzi said of Perdue:

I remember introducing him the first time we had a Budget Committee meeting, and I said, ‘Sen. Perdue knows how to balance a budget, he’s been working in the private sector.’ And he said, ‘No, in the private sector you have to show a little bit of a profit.’ Well, we’re going to have to show a little bit of profit around here if we’re ever going to get rid of the debt.

(For more from the author of “No Budget? This Senator Says That Should Mean Pay Cuts for Politicians, Staff” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Libertarian Joe Miller Blasts Lisa Murkowski for Yet Another Dereliction of Duty

Anchorage, Alaska. September 30, 2016 – Alaska Libertarian nominee Joe Miller blasted Lisa Murkowski on Friday for voting to fund the government again without any meaningful concessions from the Obama Administration.

“It’s dereliction of duty,” said Miller. “Thursday’s vote to give President Obama a blank check with no accountability is exactly why we need to replace incumbents like Lisa Murkowski. There is simply no pushback from our federal delegation. It’s really sad.”

Democrats and Republicans alike have corrupted the process and relinquished their Constitutional authority to the Executive Branch.

According to Conservative Review:

“This government funding bill funded all aspects of the federal government from October 1 through December 9, 2016. Absent from this budget bill was any sort of meaningful limitations on a single illegal, abusive, or harmful executive action taken by President Obama.

“In fact, this spending bill funded every major policy priority of the Obama administration.

“Absent from the bill were limitations or reforms to Obamacare, Planned Parenthood funding, Obama’s transgender bathroom mandate on the states, sanctuary cities, unconstitutional amnesty, or anything resembling a spending reduction or fiscal responsibility to address our $20 trillion debt.”

Miller concluded, “Murkowski can come home and talk about federal overreach all she wants, but it’s all meaningless drivel when she votes to fund every illegal and unconstitutional executive mandate perpetrated on the American people by this Administration. She has abandoned her oath of office.”

Joe Miller is a limited government Constitutionalist who believes government exists to protect our liberties, not to take them away. He supports free people, free markets, federalism, the Constitutional right to life, the 2nd Amendment, religious liberty, American sovereignty, and a strong national defense.

Did Jeb Bush Just Let Slip Who He’s Voting for in Presidential Election?

When asked who he will vote for in the November presidential election, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has intimated on several occasions that he may cast his vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

At a luncheon hosted by the Manhattan Institute on Wednesday, Bush suggested he may choose Johnson over Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

A source at the luncheon told the New York Daily News, “There was an old man talking to Jeb across the table and said, ‘I can’t bring myself to vote for Hillary and Trump,’ and Jeb looked at him and mouthed the word ‘Johnson,’ silently.”

During his speech at the event, Bush reportedly made a comment referring to Johnson as the president.

According to a source, Bush jokingly said, “If I did get a call several weeks after the election, what would I tell President Johnson — I mean, President whoever.”

In an email to the Daily News, Kristy Campbell, spokesperson for Bush, made it clear he had not chosen a candidate to support.

“Nothing has changed since the Governor wrote [a Washington Post] op-ed a couple months ago saying he couldn’t support Hillary or Trump. He has said he would consider voting for the Libertarian ticket. No decision/update though,” Campbell wrote.

Johnson, who according to the latest Real Clear Politics analysis is drawing about 7 percent support in the most recent presidential polls, has been in the news recently for his responses to questions on foreign issues.

The former governor of New Mexico recently appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” where he was asked, “What would you do if you were elected about Aleppo?”

Johnson responded, “And what is Aleppo?”

The host asked if he was joking to which Johnson answered, “No.”

In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Wednesday, Johnson was asked to name his favorite foreign leader.

Johnson wanted to name the former Mexican President Vicente Fox, but was unable to grasp the name.

“I guess I’m having an Aleppo moment,” Johnson told Matthews. (For more from the author of “Did Jeb Bush Just Let Slip Who He’s Voting for in Presidential Election?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘He Gave Me Hope:’ Ohio Officer Prays With Grieving Man During Traffic Stop

When Mark Ross and his friend were pulled over for speeding early Sunday morning in Ohio, Ross expected to go to jail. There was a petty warrant for his arrest in Michigan, and his friend was driving with a suspended license.

Why were they speeding? Ross had just learned that his 15-year-old sister died in a car accident, and they were rushing to Detroit so he could be with his mother.

Ross explained this to the officer, Sgt. David Robison of Ohio State Highway Patrol.

“I broke down crying and he saw the sincerity in my cry,” Ross wrote in a Facebook post. The officer’s next move surprised him.

Instead of arresting Ross, Robison began to pray.

“He REACHES OVER AND BEGAN PRAYING OVER ME AND MY FAMILY,” Ross’s Facebook post reads.

In a later interview with InsideEdition.com, Ross said Robison’s actions were “overwhelming.”

Robison also offered to drive Ross to Detroit, Fox News reported.

Since Sunday, Ross’s Facebook post has been shared over 135,000 times. His story comes at a time when tensions between many Americans and police officers are high — in the last three months alone, the fatal shootings of black men by police officers have sparked protests, riots, and violence against law enforcement.

“Everybody knows how much I dislike Cops,” Ross wrote on Facebook, adding that he was thankful for Robison. “He gave me hope.”

According to InsideEdition.com, Ross’s family has invited Robison to attend the funeral services for his sister, and Robison plans to attend. (For more from the author of “‘He Gave Me Hope:’ Ohio Officer Prays With Grieving Man During Traffic Stop” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.