Thursday on the Mark Levin program, Conservative Review’s Editor-in-Chief read a report indicating the Obama administration cut a secret deal with Iran to permit the terrorist-sponsoring regime to violate restrictions put in place by last year’s nuclear deal.
“This is the biggest issue of the day, the biggest issue of the month, the biggest issue of the year!”
Listen:
“These are impeachable offenses. For Obama. For Vice-President Biden. For Secretary of State Kerry. For Susan Rice. For the whole top-level of the administration, the president on down,” Levin said.
“We have just armed up the most aggressive, detestable terrorist-state on the face of the earth! We’ve just sold out to them! They’re on their way [to] building nuclear weapons!”
“This is the fate that Barack Obama has sealed for the American people!”
Mark Levin continued after the break, tearing into the Iran nuclear deal and the feckless politicians who gave it to us.
“They may seek to wash their hands, but their hands are full of uranium! Their hands are full of plutonium!” (For more from the author of “MARK LEVIN: Dammit, Obama Lied and Iran Is on Its Way to Nukes!” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/16688052571_547dbc2c9c_b-1.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-09-01 22:40:082016-09-03 21:45:20MARK LEVIN: Dammit, Obama Lied and Iran Is on Its Way to Nukes!
It’s been a rough start to the week for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. On Tuesday, State Department attorneys announced that they had retrieved 30 emails relating to the 2012 Benghazi attacks from Clinton’s private server.
According to the Washington Examiner, a judge requested that the agency review the documents ahead of a release to the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, which filed the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that resulted in a year-long FBI probe involving around 15,000 emails — over 2,000 of which were believed to contain classified information.
As the Examiner points out, the new discovery is noteworthy because Clinton had repeatedly insisted to government agencies and to the public that she turned over all work-related communications in the batch of 55,000 pages she submitted to the FBI in late 2014.
During the hearing Tuesday, State Department lawyers told Judge Amit Mehta of U.S. District Court that they had yet to determine how many of the 30 emails had already been disclosed in the 2014 email dump, according to the Examiner.
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton announced in a tweet Tuesday that the State Department requested 30 days to review the new emails before releasing them to the watchdog group.
State finds 30 Benghazi-related "deleted" Clinton emails, wants 30 days to turn them over. Court demurs and suggests they move quicker.
But wait — there’s more! On Wednesday, the New York Post announced that it has exclusively learned that Clinton continued to send classified information over her private server months after leaving the State Department:
On May 28, 2013, months after stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton sent an email to a group of diplomats and top aides about the “123 Deal” with the United Arab Emirates.
But the email, which was obtained by the Republican National Committee through a Freedom of Information Act request, was heavily redacted upon its release by the State Department because it contains classified information.
The email, sent from [email protected] (the account associated with Clinton’s private server), is marked classified until May 28, 2033. The RNC eventually received a heavily redacted copy through its Freedom of Information Act request, as it includes “information regarding foreign governors” and “foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.”
Clinton sent the email to Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, diplomat Jeffrey Feltman, policy aide Jake Sullivan, diplomat Kurt Campbell, State Department chief of staff Cheryl Mills, and top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
The “123 Deal,” also called the “123 Agreement,” was a 2009 agreement between the United States and United Arab Emirates that established “a required legal framework for commerce in civilian nuclear energy between the two countries,” according to the UAE Embassy website.
“Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information was so pervasive, it continued after she left government,” RNC research director Raj Shah told the Post. “She clearly can’t be trusted with our nation’s security.”
Darn that Freedom of Information Act! (For more from the author of “Just When You Think the Clinton Insanity Is Over, There’s More!” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/25056373894_1e5b842941_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-09-01 01:15:362016-09-03 21:34:38Just When You Think the Clinton Insanity Is Over, There’s More!
Almost all of us have been a victim of accidentally spreading fake news at one time. A trusted friend emails you a link to an article that is red meat for the conservative base; it sounds legitimate, and the name of the site even sounds official. You forward the article and post it on Facebook and Twitter — and then the backlash is embarrassing. Multiple people point out you’re wrong, and you feel like an idiot. But how were you to know, especially in this information overload, social media era? It has become normal to quickly skim articles and headlines. And why would you suspect your most trusted, intelligent friends would be sending you false news?
It used to be The Onion was the only satire news site. And the site makes it very clear its news is satire. But within the last year, multiple sites (there is a list compiled here) have sprung up that do not make it clear they are satire, if at all. They brazenly post fake news that isn’t even funny, like The Onion, but sounds like legitimate news.
By posting these outlandish tales, the sites attract many page views, which allows them to make money from advertisers. Even more nefarious, some are run by Democrats in order to make conservatives look like radical extremists. The strategy, an insider told me, is to fool so many conservatives into spreading a ridiculous, fake article that finally a prominent elected official falls for it. Then the left pounces on the official and makes them look foolish and/or an extremist.
As I’ve written previously, putting out heroic stories about Donald Trump that turn out to be false doesn’t help Trump when people discover they are false.
Some of the worst offenders are sites that rip off names from legitimate conservative news sites. World News Daily Report is a typical example. It sounds very similar to the conservative site WorldNetDaily, which recently renamed itself to WND. The disclaimer on the site says nothing about the news being fake; instead, it disingenuously states that the site is not responsible for inaccurate information. The fake site’s “About us FAQ” page pretends to cater to conservative Jews and Christians with a strong defense of Israel. Yet how are fake news articles helping Israel? The site has become so successful that the myth-debunking site Snopes now lists it second on its “Field Guide to Fake News Sites and Hoax Purveyors.”
For some of these sites, the proverbial chickens have come home to roost. The gossip website Gawker was recently sued by celebrity wrestler Hulk Hogan for posting a sex tape of him, which put the company into bankruptcy and forced it to shut down a week ago. There are many ways these sites could be sued out of existence, such as for libel or the unauthorized use of images. Facebook has started removing these articles from users’ news feeds. Perhaps a developer can create an app to add to browsers that will specifically block these sites.
The people who run these sites are nothing more than cruel bullies who should get a taste of their own medicine. It is one thing to identify a story as parody, but to deliberately print false news to trick innocent people in order to make them look bad and destroy their credibility is dishonest, a nuisance and an abuse of the press. If they knowingly put false news about a crime or catastrophe out over TV, they would be prosecuted, due to the dangers of creating substantial public harm such as a mass panic.
Until these sites are curtailed, conservatives must get into the habit of looking up news articles regularly on myth-debunking sites like Snopes (granted, that particular site leans to the left). If The New York Times isn’t breaking some huge story, but a site called Your News Wire is, that is a good indication it may be a fake article. (For more from the author of “The Left Is Busily Planting Fake Red-Meat Conservative News Sites” please click HERE)
Hillary Clinton’s campaign feels confident. So confident that behind closed doors her team is taking some credit for forcing Donald Trump to seemingly defend territory that Republicans almost never lose.
After weeks of Brooklyn telegraphing a competitive race in traditionally red states and making public moves that look like initial investments — boosting staff, holding fundraisers and promising more investments — Trump is now campaigning in Arizona, which has voted Republican in 15 of the past 16 elections, while his running mate goes to Georgia, a state that’s gone red in seven of the past eight cycles.
That’s a deployment of precious resources away from swing states that Trump must win to make the Electoral College math work in his favor.
In private, members of Clinton’s team draw a direct line between their activity in those states and Trump’s worries there. In public, Democrats are starting to cheer the success.
“This would be the equivalent of Hillary having to campaign in Massachusetts or having to campaign in California, except [to raise] money,” said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, a veteran of Bill Clinton’s campaign and White House teams who remains close to the family’s operation. “Either he has fallen for it hook, line and sinker, or there are substantive concerns given his changes in some of the margins within specific cohorts of voters. Either way, it’s good news.” (Read more from “Clinton Camp Thinks Trump Fell for Old Trick” HERE)
As the fractured Republican Party works desperately to maintain its majority in both houses of Congress, and build momentum for the November elections, it will be losing one member of the House of Representatives next week.
Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., 73, announced Wednesday that he will be resigning on the day Congress returns after a seven week recess.
Whitfield had previously announced he would retire at the end of his term.
Whitfield officially announced his intention to step down in a letter to Republican Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin. The letter did not state a reason for Whitfield’s decision.
“It has been my honor and privilege to have represented the constituents of the First District of Kentucky in the United States Congress for the last almost 22 years,” Whitfield wrote.
“As you know, I did not seek re-election to Congress this year and have now decided to submit my resignation as the Congressman of the First District of Kentucky, effective 6 p.m., Tuesday, September 6, 2016,” the letter added.
Bevin released a statement in response to Whitfield’s resignation.
“Both personally and on behalf of the Commonwealth, I want to thank Congressman Ed Whitfield for his many years of service to our state and our nation,” Bevin said.
“It has been an honor working alongside him on a variety of issues, including our support for the workers at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant and for the men and women serving our country stationed at Fort Campbell,” McConnell said.
The House Ethics Committee had been investigating the 11-term congressman to determine whether his wife, who is a lobbyist for the Human Society, had improper access to Whitfield.
Last month, the panel rebuked Whitfield, saying he did take sufficient measures to prevent inappropriate linkages between his staff and wife. However, the committee also ruled that Whitefield did not intentionally break ethics rules.
The election to fill the final weeks of Whitfield’s term will come on the same day as the general election contest to replace him, which pits Republican James Comer against Democrat Sam Gaskins.
House Republicans currently have a majority of 247-186 over Democrats. (For more from the author of “Republican Congressman Ed Whitfield Announces Resignation on Short Notice” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/4629774429_0e4aa6505c_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-09-01 01:04:072016-09-01 01:04:07Republican Congressman Ed Whitfield Announces Resignation on Short Notice
Anthony Weiner’s latest photo escapade has resulted in an investigation into his fitness as a parent.
On Monday, news organizations began publishing a photo of Weiner that he sent to a woman showing the former congressman in bed next to his son.
As reported by Western Journalism, the lewd photo showed “a bulge in his white, Jockey-brand boxer briefs and his son cuddled up to his left, wrapped in a light-green blanket.”
When the pictures hit the papers, calls for an investigation soon followed.
“The photo and story worry me as a senator, a minister, a parent, and a grandfather, because I believe that the disregard for any boundaries of sexual activity with a child present is incredibly inappropriate, and could have a harmful impact on the child,” Democratic New York State Sen. Reuben Diaz said Monday. “I urge the city of New York’s Administration for Children’s Services to investigate this case carefully and thoroughly.”
The child welfare agency has since launched an investigation into how Weiner cares for his son, The New York Post reported, citing “a city government source.”
The Post reported that city staff made a home visit to the apartment building where Weiner lives, in keeping with the agency’s rules and regulations.
Weiner told the Post Wednesday he had not been interviewed by the agency.
However, other sources said an investigation was inevitable.
“From what it looked like, (Weiner) is possibly exposing his child to an imminent risk of harm. This is something ACS looks into for much less situations … ACS is mandated to protect children from cases of suspected abuse and or neglect,” said Mark Feldman, a divorce and custody lawyer in New York City.
“Any time adults draw children into their own sexual activity, they have crossed the line. It is always inappropriate for an adult to connect any child to their sexual activities, however peripheral,” said Tim Hathaway, executive director at Prevent Child Abuse New York.
ACS said it is the agency’s policy not to comment about whether it is conducting an ongoing investigation.
Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin — who is vice chairwoman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — announced Monday that she was separating from Weiner after the latest revelation hit the newspapers.
Abedin and Weiner were married in 2010. He resigned from Congress in 2011 amid a scandal over his sexting, the same habit that derailed his 2013 attempt to run for mayor of New York City. (For more from the author of “Child Welfare Agency Investigating Weiner After Latest Photo Episode” please click HERE)
Hours before he won a contested Florida primary, the state’s junior Senator declined to criticize Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for calling Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton a “bigot.” According to Republican Senator Marco Rubio, Trump is merely turning a long-time Democratic tactic against them, and not without some justification.
“Democrats have been calling republicans a bigot for a long time,” Rubio told CNN reporter Manu Raju. “Some of the policies she stands for do harm minority communities, absolutely.”
“Too far to call her a bigot, though?” asked Raju.
“You have to ask other campaigns about the terms they use,” said Rubio. “I can tell you I don’t want Hillary Clinton to be our president.”
Trump has pivoted his campaign in recent weeks to woo black voters, saying that Clinton is a “bigot” because she doesn’t care about the quality of minority lives in America. “She is a bigot,” he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper. “She is selling them down the tubes because she’s not doing anything for those communities. She talks a good game. But she doesn’t do anything.”
When Cooper asked if Clinton had disdain for blacks, Trump said, “Her policies are bigoted because she knows they’re not going to work.”
Clinton responded in a Thursday speech, twice accusing Trump of “bigotry” and twice accusing him of making a “racial lie.” Many media voices seemed to defend Clinton or downplay the aggression in her speech, even as they reacted strongly to Trump’s accusations.
The Nazi Card
Trump’s attack is one often heard, but usually it’s Democrats calling Republicans bigots. A quick search pulled up some prominent liberal figures accusing various Republicans of bigoted beliefs of various kinds, including the charge that they hold the same positions as Nazis.
In 2001, the first president of the Southern Poverty Law Center and then-NAACP Chairman Julian Bond — now deceased — compared U.S. conservatives to the Taliban. In 2003, he said of Republicans, “Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side.”
Current U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was accused in his Senate hearings of discriminatory beliefs towards non-whites and women, something that led his wife to leave the hearing in tears and Alito to declare, “I am not any kind of a bigot.”
A 2004 Townhall.com column highlighted many examples of prominent Democrats — among them then-Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, himself a former KKK member, as well former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and a federal judge — comparing President George W. Bush or members of his administration to Hitler or to those working for Hitler. This column highlights other examples.
Sometimes the accusations are subtle. Other times, not so much. After a rules debate in the U.S. Senate, one Democratic Senator dialed the rhetoric straight to ten:
“You’re a bunch of dictators, that’s all you are,” Rep. Sam Gibbons (D-Fla.) shouted as he stormed, red-faced, from a meeting room just off the House floor. “I had to fight you guys 50 years ago,” said Gibbons, who fought the Nazis in World War II.
In 2012, the Chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party compared GOP Governor Nikki Haley — who is of Indian descent — to Adolf Hitler’s girlfriend Eva Braun, this when Haley spoke at a GOP event in Charlotte, North Carolina at the same time as the Democratic National Convention.
There is enough of this sort of thing to compile “A Short History of Liberals Using the Nazi Card” against conservatives.
Fascists and Racists
When they want to be slightly less hamfisted, the American left opts for terms like “fascist” or “racist.” So, for instance, in 2015 a University of Wisconsin sociologist who is now employed by Temple University called her state’s governor, Scott Walker, “and many Wisconsin Legislators” fascists in a tweet. She wasn’t the only one. A Google search for the joint terms “Scott Walker” and “fascist” brings up many options.
Last year, prominent liberal columnist Frank Rich said that Dr. Ben Carson, who is black, appealed to the “racist, bigoted” GOP base when Carson said he might not support a Muslim president. In 2013, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) compared Tea Party activists to the KKK, which led to criticisms from liberals like MSNBC host Martin Bashir, but also praise from liberal commentators — including one who said Mitt Romney was engaging in racism when he told the NAACP in 2012 that some voters want “free stuff.”
Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, was also accused of bigotry in a Bloomberg column for allegedly forcing a gay staffer criticized by social conservatives to quit his campaign. His predecessor GOP nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, was accused of various forms of racism and bigotry in multiple mediums when he ran for President.
President Barack Obama was not above similar rhetoric, accusing Romney in 2012 of wanting to bring America back to its sexist and racist past. Other prominent liberal voices did the same on TV, online and in print, to the point where many Americans may have simply tuned them out.
Media is “Setting Aside Any Concept of Ethics or Neutrality”
Conservative critics of the media’s treatment of Republicans abound. One of them, Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center, told The Stream that “the left and the media use four major strategies to attack either conservative or right-leaning politicians. They claim they are some combination of crazy, evil, stupid and racist. They depicted Reagan as crazy, senile (stupid) and racist. George H.W. Bush had run the CIA, so he was evil. George W. Bush was described as crazy and stupid.”
“The ist words are the most popular ones with the media now — racist, sexist, nationalist, etc.,” continued Gainor. “These are designed to eliminate any debate. One you have been declared ist, you are merely supposed to recant and be silent.”
Gainor concluded, “Liberals and those in the media are shocked that Trump dare criticize Clinton at all. They overwhelmingly have thrown in for her candidacy, setting aside any concept of ethics or neutrality.” (For more from the author of “Trump Calls Hillary a Bigot. Rubio: Some of Her Policies ‘Do Harm Minority Communities'” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/8566788436_38895ef571_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-09-01 00:50:412016-09-01 00:50:41Trump Calls Hillary a Bigot. Rubio: Some of Her Policies ‘Do Harm Minority Communities’
Did you know that if you support the Black Lives Matter movement — as in the official, BlackLivesMatter.com website — you are not only standing with black Americans but also standing with a radical social agenda including queer and transgender activism along with the disrupting of the nuclear family?
Before I demonstrate this to you, allow me to explain the purpose of this article. I write with the goal of standing with my African-American brothers and sisters for true and full equality in America while encouraging them to distance themselves from leaders and movements who do as much harm (if not much more harm) than good.
NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, whom I recently addressed over this very issue, would do well to heed this warning.
But first, a moment of personal background for those who do not listen to my daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.
For several years now, God-fearing, law-abiding African-Americans have called the broadcast and, with great respect and humility, told me that I have no idea what it’s like to be a black American, that I have no idea how much racial prejudice still exists in our country, and that I have no idea how many obstacles black Americans still face.
I for one don’t doubt what they’re saying, which is why I spoke of the “very real challenges faced by African-Americans” in my open letter to Kaepernick, also mentioning the “very real problems that do exist in America, including issues of racial discrimination and injustice.”
The perspective of my callers was echoed by Dr. Brian Williams, one of the doctors who tried to save the lives of the Dallas policemen who were assassinated by an African-American shooter in July. Speaking as both a doctor and a black American, Dr. Williams said, “This is much more complicated for me personally.”
As he explained, “There’s this dichotomy where I’m standing with law enforcement, but I also personally feel that angst that comes when you cross the path of an officer in uniform and you’re fearing for your safety. I’ve been there, and I understand that.”
And yet there he was in anguish, trying to save the lives of these officers, men whom, in a different setting, he would have unduly feared.
As a white American, I cannot relate to this personally, although I grew up in the most open-minded household you could imagine, with my first organ teacher being openly gay (he and his partner would often stay for dinner with the family) and my second organ teacher being a black man who was married to a white woman, which cost both of them dearly in the 1960s.
The fact is that I have never been racially profiled and I have not faced some of the challenges that many of my black brothers and sisters have faced, all of which brings me to say this: I am glad that we are revisiting the question of racial injustice in America but I believe that movements like Black Lives Matter are hurting the cause more than helping it.
In similar fashion, as stated in my open letter, I have no issue with Kaepernick wanting to take a stand for his beliefs. I simply believe he’s using the wrong setting and putting an emphasis on the wrong issue.
Has he himself been negatively influenced by Black Lives Matter?
According to FoxNews.com, “NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s conversion to social activism coincided with his romancing of a hip hop DJ of Egyptian descent [Nessa Diab] who has frequently spoken about perceived racial injustices and ‘Islamaphobia’ in the U.S.” (There are also reports that he has converted to Islam, but these have been disputed.)
Diab is popular on MTV and is associated with Islamic activism and with the Black Lives Matter movement, which would help to explain the change in Kaepernick’s Instagram account in the four months it has been in existence.
Initially, most of his posts centered on him playing football. “But 31 of his last 42 posts have strong social justice connotations, often featuring quotes from radical Nation of Islam leader Malcolm X, Black Panthers founder Huey Newton and cop killer Assata Shakur. During a Sunday news conference about the flag flap, Kaepernick dressed in a black hat with a large, white ‘X’ and a T-shirt that featured photos of Cuban despot Fidel Castro and Malcolm X.”
What about the Black Lives Matter movement itself? Not only is it allegedly supported by extreme leftists like George Soros, and not only have some of its foundational myths been exposed, but it forthrightly proclaims its radical social agenda on its website for everyone to see. How many have taken notice?
Under its guiding principles page, along with subjects like Loving Engagement (which does not overtly call for non-violent resistance but does make a positive statement), there are also headings like this: Black Villages: “We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, and especially ‘our’ children to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable.”
So, this movement opposes the very structure which is most under attack in black America today — namely, the nuclear family — also failing to mention “fathers” by name (note the references to mothers, parents, and children, but not fathers). What kind of social madness is this?
Other guiding principles include being Queer Affirming, under which heading it is affirmed that, “… When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking …” There is also the call to be Transgender Affirming, where it is explained that, “… We are committed to being self-reflexive and doing the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk ….”
Is this really a movement that can represent African-Americans nationwide? I think not.
That’s why it’s essential for those who really want to address questions of social injustice — be it the effects of the Democrat-led welfare system or apparent disparities in prison sentences or other apparent injustices — to distance themselves from the Black Lives Matter movement and take a reasoned stand for righteousness.
As you do, I’m standing with you, shoulder to shoulder, as best as I can. (For more from the author of “Separating the Value of Black Lives From the Black Lives Matter Movement” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/15855236526_f011e17a96_b.jpg6851024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-09-01 00:33:482016-09-01 00:33:48Separating the Value of Black Lives From the Black Lives Matter Movement
In the decades since The Heritage Foundation began publishing its annual Index of Economic Freedom in 1995, the world has witnessed profound advances in economic freedom.
Open economies have led the world in a startling burst of innovation and economic growth, and political authorities have found themselves increasingly held accountable by those they govern.
Unfortunately, the United States has drifted downward in the index rankings—propelled by reckless government spending that has spiraled out of control and led to unprecedented budget deficits. The long U.S. slide has been marked by stagnant economic expansion and extremely sluggish employment growth.
So, in this important election year, The Heritage Foundation has dedicated its annual “Global Agenda for Economic Freedom” to a detailed examination of ways to improve Americans’ economic freedom and America’s positive impact on the global economy.
Here are 12 steps the next U.S. president can take in 2017 for more economic freedom in America and the rest of the world:
1. American workers and consumers have benefitted from international trade, but global barriers to the free flow of goods and services and investment (e.g. nontariff barriers and nontransparent investment regimes) grew under President Barack Obama. The next administration must promote economic freedom by reducing them and opening new markets.
2. China faces huge economic challenges that, if unaddressed, will drag down the global economy. As a start, the next U.S. president should push China’s leadership to sign a bilateral investment agreement to make doing business there easier.
3. The price and availability of one of the most important production inputs—energy—will benefit from further liberalization of American and global energy markets.
4. Export financing subsidies from the U.S. Export-Import Bank and elsewhere are unnecessary and distort the U.S. and global economies. The Export-Import Bank should be shut down.
5. American economic growth will be enhanced by better, U.S.-led international policy coordination. The next president should downgrade the ineffective G-20 process and create a new, informal G-9 group of the world’s top nine economies.
6. The International Monetary Fund was created to bring stability to the international financial system. The IMF must return to basics by promoting rules-based monetary policies instead of bailing out countries that fail to follow those rules.
7. Many countries’ economic freedom scores would be substantially higher if not for the prevalence of government corruption. The next administration should make the fight against corruption a key component of U.S. development assistance programs.
8. The next president should evaluate all foreign aid programs for effectiveness and insist Congress update the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act to put the United States Agency for International Development directly under State Department control.
9. Massively subsidized state-owned enterprises are a main factor restraining development. The next president should review U.S. state-owned enterprises, remove the U.S. government from activities best left to the private sector, and push other countries to do likewise.
10. The next president must confront rogue states pursuing deliberately harmful policies that threaten global security and commerce by creating a sanctions strategy that targets troublemakers and prioritizes reforms that enhance economic freedom.
11. Climate change policies are another area where government decisions have created opportunities for rent-seeking cronyism and have harmed economic growth while doing nothing that actually affects global temperatures. The next administration should take immediate action to withdraw from the redistributionist and ineffective United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and end U.S. payments to the U.N. Green Climate Fund.
12. Government-sponsored corporate socialist cronyism, often under the guise of promoting corporate social responsibility, increased greatly under Obama. The next president must assess the risks of cronyism-related CSR rent-seeking and end federal “corporate excellence” awards, “green” tax credits, “public-private partnerships,” and all other forms of corporate welfare.
The revitalizing policies in the “2017 Global Agenda for Economic Freedom” will create good, new jobs for Americans and a freer flow of capital, goods, services, and ideas around the world. (For more from the author of “A 12-Step Plan for Global Economic Freedom” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/flags-65616_960_720.jpg720830Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-09-01 00:26:172016-09-01 00:26:17A 12-Step Plan for Global Economic Freedom
The phrase “income inequality” has a lot going for it. It’s catchy and memorable, and “inequality” breeds an immediate emotional response—contempt for the existence of an unfair policy and outrage that people might support it.
Those who cry out in favor of ending it have successfully packaged their indignation as a pep rally for the masses; those who cry out against the existence of “income inequality” are seen as selfish and uncaring.
That’s quite a narrative to change, but it’s not impossible. They might have a good phrase, but you have a great argument.
Building on the strategies we’ve outlined in previous weeks, here’s how you can have a conversation with a liberal about “income inequality”:
1. Common Ground
It may be easy to dismiss someone who is preaching from an economic handbook that’s a few shades closer to socialism than you’ll ever be. But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater when talking with someone about “income inequality.”
More than likely, the common ground here is that you, on both sides of the argument, want everyone to have an equal chance at living the American dream. That’s a good, solid piece of common ground if your aim is to see that no one is unfairly disadvantaged.
2. Examples
Most important is to expose the myth that the pie is only so large and the rich get rich at the expense of the poor. The best way to do so is by using examples with a focus on the issue of income mobility—or, in other words, are we making it easier for all people to climb the economic ladder?
Those beating the drum of income inequality to the tune of the rich paying their “fair share” often neglect the fact that the “rich” includes small business owners (by the way, usually not millionaires or even close). The more money small business owners have to pay in taxes to the government, the less money they can pay their employees, which leads to layoffs and/or the closing of businesses. And fewer jobs help no one, least of all those struggling to make ends meet. If you know of a business in your community that’s closed its doors because of too-high taxes, talk about it. It will resonate with those who want to stand up for local businesses.
Another good example points to the real reason the poor remain poor—burdensome regulations that make it difficult to start businesses. The Daily Signal highlighted this issue a couple of weeks ago. All Lata Jagtiani wanted to do was make an honest living using her skill of eyebrow threading, but due to unnecessary regulations in her state requiring hours of training for something she already knew how to do, she was ultimately prevented from serving her clients. In the name of “safety,” Jagtiani wasn’t able to make a living and a valuable service was withheld.
3. Words
While the words “income inequality” aren’t threatening on a piece of paper, we know the phrase means something entirely different in political conversation since being hijacked by the big government side. Using this short phrase in a void isn’t a bad thing—but we all know we aren’t in Kansas anymore, Toto.
If you’re trying to fight the bad policy that stands behind the phrase “income inequality,” a good place to start is to use different language—language that speaks to the heart of what you’re trying to say.
Use phrases like “equal opportunity,” “hard work,” or “achieve the American dream” to better illustrate your point—it’s more effective to give someone the opportunity to succeed instead of handing out freebies. Also, talk about making it easier for all people to climb the economic ladder (ahem—income mobility) as a way to help your audience better visualize what you are talking about.
So, don’t shy away from a topic that can be tricky to navigate. Embrace the common ground of the American dream, use examples that show government interference is causing the poor to stay poor, and use the right words to unify instead of polarize. (For more from the author of “Use These 3 Strategies to Talk to a Liberal About Income Inequality” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/conversation-799448_960_720.png580960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-09-01 00:21:572016-09-01 00:21:57Use These 3 Strategies to Talk to a Liberal About Income Inequality
