The Left’s “Abortion-Armageddon” Hysteria Now in Full Force with Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Remember when conservatives thought President Obama was so pro-choice he would practically require women to have abortions to both show how thankful they were that they even had such a right and to demonstrate the importance of it? No? Me neither. That’s because President Obama never said such a thing — nor did any media, right of center, speculate he might believe that. To do so would have been false, dangerously reckless, and just plain absurd.

Yet, ever since President Trump won the election, the media has been anxiously predicting the era of a woman’s “right to choose” will soon be over, as all Republicans are apparently working to curtail access to the wonder of abortion. (Strangely, nothing is said of the lives of actual babies at stake.)

In this, the Left not only acts unfairly, but misses the point altogether of where much of the conservative movement stands on abortion. Hint: It’s not in the middle of a back alley, beckoning women to get abortions via coat hangers, risking life and limb.

What Trump will do

In this New York magazine cover story, “Warning: Abortion’s Deadly DIY Past Could Soon Become Its Future,” the writer all but predicts Trump will single-handedly overturn Roe v. Wade, forcing women to have abortions illegally in secret.

Upon his November election win, Americans Googled “abortion” so much it looked like the “manifestation of collective anxiety about what would become an early flash point in the Trump administration—and a first test of whether much of the social progress of the past 40 years can be undone over the next four.”

The piece describes how our great grandmothers had to seek abortions secretly and dangerously: “This isn’t ancient history; this was the lived reality of many of our mothers and certainly of our grandmothers. And it is entirely possible that it could become our future as well.”

One of the things they worry Trump will do is what Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. (F, 52%) has often said Congress will (and attempted to do last year) — defund Planned Parenthood. The New York cover story suggests that if this were to occur:

60 percent of Planned Parenthood patients — who rely on those programs for Pap smears, breast exams, STD testing, and, of course, contraception would no longer be able to get that care from Planned Parenthood. For many, that would mean not being able to get treatment at all.

This could not be more false. Defunding Planned Parenthood simply means they won’t receive taxpayer dollars. In fact, last year the House Oversight Committee found Planned Parenthood was able to function without taxpayer subsidies. If the absence of taxpayer dollars forces the group to shut down, perhaps they never should have been in operation in the first place.

So is this an attempt by Republicans to handle taxpayer dollars wisely that doubles as an attempt to save the lives of unborn babies? Absolutely. Bloomberg did report last February abortion clinics were closing at a “record pace.” Since 2011, 162 clinics closed, not all operated by Planned Parenthood.

And while most of those closings were due to legislation, some closed because they were not fit to practice medicine — a fact that doesn’t seem to bother the Left. By contrast, the number of crisis pregnancy centers, which typically steer patients away from abortion, are growing at an alarming pace.

Babies have rights, too

New York mag explains, “The truth is, conservative activists and legislators have been chipping away at American women’s access to reproductive health care for years, with more and greater restrictions in more and more states.”

While the above might appear to the Left as a strategic maneuver to strip women of the supposed right to choose, the statistics — abortion clinics defunded or closing and crisis pregnancy centers rising — more accurately show a two-pronged effort to stop murdering babies in utero.

The piece continues:

That the right wing’s focus is not simply opposition to abortion but also reducing women’s access to contraception gives away the game: Theirs is an effort to keep women from making decisions about when, if, and under what circumstances to have children, and thereby to keep them from exerting agency over their families, their work, their partnerships, their sex lives, and their bodies.

Sigh.

Speaker Paul Ryan, when asked if birth control would still be free when Republicans repeal Obamacare, called it a “nitty-gritty detail,” and was lambasted for his callousness toward what is apparently a central issue in U.S. health care. The issue is neither central nor an “effort to keep women from making decisions about when, if, and under what circumstances to have children.”

Remind me again why and with what logic should the government provide health care, birth control et al., for free? That’s the central issue. When my husband and I were newly married and just beginning to talk through if or when we might like children, it never occurred to me the government should pay for my birth control, just like the government does not pay for my dentistry.

While they’re not always successful at implementing this, the party of limited government and fiscal responsibility sometimes tries to enforce these ideas.

Ignorance is bliss

Despite the fact that Roe v. Wade was decided decades ago, the Left still feigns outrage when conservatives try to curtail abortions by any means, legislatively or otherwise. Articles like and the New York mag story show how they even pretend to not understand why.

Over the years, conservatives have embraced science from Princeton that shows when life begins, studies from Oxford that describe how babies feel pain in the womb, and how ultrasounds change women’s minds about their babies. The Right has encouraged marches, picketing, legislation, safe clinics, care for moms and babies postpartum, and adoption. In fact, conservatives are doing this so successfully it’s spawned abortion-armageddon hysteria.

It’s baffling as to how the Left continues to insist, after four decades, that Republicans — who have repeatedly fought for women’s rights over the last century — actually care more about limiting women’s freedoms than saving lives.

It’s such an obvious truth it’s hard to know if this ignorance is feigned or real. Only one of these efforts between the two political parties is beneficial for mom, baby, dad, and society. The other is harmful, if ever progressive and “liberating.”

Conservatives can and do care about women’s rights and babies’ rights — the two aren’t mutually exclusive. And doing both doesn’t mean women are going to be forced to have abortions in back alleys; it means women might actually think twice about aborting their babies, thus sparing emotional trauma, life, and making a difference in society’s cultural makeup. That’s what conservatives are trying to do. (For more from the author of “The Left’s “Abortion-Armageddon” Hysteria Now in Full Force with Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s Why If You Have a College Degree You’re More Likely to Live in an Elite Bubble

/0 Comments/in , /by

Political scientist Charles Murray recently surveyed 130,919 Americans between the ages of 20-99 to determine how big or small of a “bubble” they live in. Participants took the “Bubble Quiz,” and answered questions like, “Have you ever lived for at least a year in an American neighborhood in which the majority of your 50 nearest neighbors did not have college degrees?” and “During the last year, have you ever purchased domestic mass-market beer to stock your own fridge?”

The lower the score a participant received, the bigger the bubble and more “insulated” they are from “mainstream American culture,” meaning that they don’t watch the same TV shows, drink the same beer, drive the same cars, and work in the same fields as people who received higher scores.

The most-bubbly zip codes in the United States are (unsurprisingly) in New York City, Boston, Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, Washington, D.C., and San Diego also have bubble areas too, but not on the same scale as New York City or Boston. As Murray notes, the zip codes with the biggest bubbles are “overwhelmingly Democratic strongholds.”

So what’s the root difference between Americans who live in a “bubble”? And why is there a difference? According to Charles Murray, the greatest divide is a cultural one. Murray argues that “mainstream American culture” is “conspicuously different from the culture of the new upper class” located in large-city bubbles. As a result of this cultural divide, there’s an “asymmetry of power” between those who live in big cities and those who don’t. Further, the quiz found that elite zip codes in America are predominately white and urban.

So, white urbanites who don’t drink mass-market beer, have never owned a pickup truck, and don’t eat at Ruby Tuesday, “run the nation’s culture, economy, and politics,” according to Murray.

And what makes someone “elite”? In short, a college degree makes a big difference.

Murray found that when he “controlled for the age of the respondent and the urbanization of the zip code, it turned out that virtually all the effect on the bubble-score is driven by the percentage of adults with a college degree in the zip code where the respondent lived.” The survey also discovered that the median family income of the zip code had “almost no independent effect” on the size of a bubble, which is significant.

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that only 33 percent of American adults hold a bachelor’s or higher degree. For some, a four-year degree is too expensive to obtain, and for others who are drawn to technical or labor-intensive jobs, a bachelor’s degree may not be necessary or desirable. But in an increasingly divided country, American adults who don’t have a college degree feel powerless in comparison to those who have formed elite bubbles.

When people feel powerless, they feel like they have nothing to lose. Donald Trump made the powerless feel like they mattered once again, and that’s why he won the election.

So what should “elite” Democrats do if they want to connect with the rest of America? “Get out more,” says Murray. (For more from the author of “Here’s Why If You Have a College Degree You’re More Likely to Live in an Elite Bubble” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Chonda Pierce, ‘Queen of Clean,’ Responds to ‘Angry Haters’ about Her Inaugural Appearance

/0 Comments/in , /by

Toby Keith, Jennifer Holliday, 3 Doors Down, The Piano Guys, Lee Greenwood, DJ RaviDrums and The Frontmen of Country will be performing at Donald Trump’s inaugural welcome concert next week, The Associated Press reported Friday. Also performing around town at a series of inaugural events will be Christian comedienne Chonda Pierce. Unfortunately, Chonda has been hit with a flurry of hate posts since her participation was announced.

After Chonda accepted the opportunity to headline the Inauguration and participate in several events, “angry haters” came out of the woodwork. Chonda responded on Facebook that it was about being a patriot more than being a performer:

TO ALL THE ANGRY HATERS: Yep! I’m going to the Inaugural! I would have gone if Obama asked me. I would have gone if Hilary asked me. But they didn’t. (And I rarely agreed with them on anything.) And btw, their checkered past plays no part in my discussion or decision. Neither does yours or mine. So, yes … I am going. I go because I love America. I am a Patriot. I respect the process and the Office. I may never even see the President. I may never even get close enough to anyone to snap a picture. But I’m going. My performance may never make the news, the tabloids or the history books. But I’m going. I don’t need your agreement, your filthy language or even your blessing. I am going because at some point in life you must put aside your opinion, your politics and your anger and remember we are ALL Americans and thousands have died so that I might have the freedom to disagree, vote, protest and even dance at fancy parties.

She also posted on Facebook that people need to unify as Americans and stop the nasty language:

Action News 5 reported that Pierce will attend the Inauguration, the Inaugural Ball and the Inaugural Prayer Service at the National Cathedral. (For more from the author of “Chonda Pierce, ‘Queen of Clean,’ Responds to ‘Angry Haters’ about Her Inaugural Appearance” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Don’t Cut off the Power of Forgiveness

/0 Comments/in , /by

Back in 2001, I interviewed Philip Nitschke, an Australian doctor who’s an international advocate for assisted suicide. He was candid during the course of the interview, admitting that the option to “give away” life should ultimately be available to “anyone who wants it, including the depressed, the elderly bereaved, (and) the troubled teen.” He insisted: “If we are to remain consistent and we believe that the individual has the right to dispose of their life, we should not erect artificial barriers in the way of subgroups who don’t meet our criteria.” He wanted to be sure that anyone who desired it had the “knowledge, training or recourse necessary.”

Fifteen years later, Nitschke is waging the same campaign. He just has fewer people to convince now.

Nitschke recently formed the group Exit Action to push through legislation from a “militant pro-euthanasia position,” arguing that “voluntary euthanasia” should never be “a privilege given to the very sick by the medical profession … Exit Action believes that a peaceful death, and access to the best euthanasia drugs, is a right of all competent adults, regardless of sickness or permission from the medical profession.”

As dark as this position is, I’ve always given Nitschke credit for honesty. On so many of the issues that strike at the heart of our humanity, euphemisms and cloaked motives often rule the “debates,” such as they are.

The Inspiration of Stephen McDonald

My friend Ed Mechmann, a writer, marriage and life advocate and former prosecutor, recently pointed me to a blog post by the executive director of the End of Life Liberty Project, Kathryn Tucker. In it, Tucker, a lawyer representing plaintiffs currently suing New York State to legalize assisted suicide, protests against any legislative “burdens and restrictions” on the act.

She lists a litany of such supposedly unnecessary burdens, including a 15-day waiting period, witnesses, written requests to make sure patients aren’t acting rashly, doctor record-keeping, and a mandated second opinion to ensure against misdiagnosis. None of which seem overly burdensome, and instead are just simple protections against, yes, rash decisions and coercion.

I recalled and read all of this as Stephen McDonald, the New York City police officer who was paralyzed after being shot and left for dead 30 years ago in Central Park, was being laid to rest. McDonald later forgave the teenager who shot him, and in speaking about his life post-injury, he was often open about the fact that during some early days, he didn’t want to live. He contemplated suicide, so seriously at one point that his wife called someone who had become a close family friend, then-Cardinal John O’Connor, who spent the day with them both, ministering to them in fatherly love.

That’s what McDonald needed: Support and friends to walk the road with him and his family. He didn’t want to be a burden to his loved ones. And at certain moments, it was hard to see how God was using him for good, for great inspiration.

Since the birth of his son, now a police officer, McDonald’s message had been forgiveness. He would later explain: “I needed healing — badly — and found out that the only way forward was with love. And I learned that one of the most beautiful expressions of love is forgiving. I know that will sound illogical or impossible to some. Others will find it downright ridiculous. But I’m talking as one who has lived through this.”

At a time when there is so much violence and anger, especially on city streets, especially having to do with police, what better message could we hear? And we never would have heard it had McDonald decided to end his life. Maybe from a new perch, he can help us see a way to embrace life in all its challenges and beauty. He sure showed us how here on Earth. (For more from the author of “Don’t Cut off the Power of Forgiveness” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Homophobia Causes STDs, Fat-Shaming Causes Obesity (and Other Urban Myths)

/0 Comments/in , /by

I was recently sent an article, asking for my comments. It was written in 2013 and alleged that in the states where same-sex “marriage” had been opposed in America, there was an increase in STDs among gays, demonstrating that it was homophobia more than homosexual acts that caused STDs. In sum, the author claimed, “Bigotry makes us sick” but “full acceptance … improves our health.” More recently, I was sent an article that claimed that it was fat-shaming that largely contributed to obesity.

Can we utter a collective sigh?

Regarding the first claim, the reality is that the reported increase in STDs was minuscule (especially when compared to the extraordinarily high rates of STD’s among gay men), and the data was quite limited. But even if it were true that where gay “marriage” is discouraged, there is slightly more gay promiscuity, which in turn results in slightly higher rates of STD’s, this would not for a moment negate three important realities.

First, it is sexual promiscuity that causes STDs, not homophobia.

Second, there is more promiscuity among gays than straights.

Third, men who have sex with men (MSM) have the highest rate of STDs, to the point that the CDC reported in 2010 (and beyond), “Gay Men’s HIV Rate 44 Times that of Other Men; Syphilis Rate 46 Times Higher.”

Tragically, these numbers remain extremely high, and even a 2015 CDC report that is quite sympathetic to the gay community states, “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (collectively referred to as MSM) are at increased risk for STDs, including antimicrobial resistant gonorrhea, when compared to women and exclusively heterosexual men.”

The bottom line, then, is simple: Regardless of the presence or absence of alleged homophobia, STDs are transmitted sexually (hence their name), and they remain disproportionately high in the gay community, especially among men.

Could it be that God did not design our bodies for promiscuity or certain homosexual acts? If we want to reduce STDs — among heterosexuals as well as homosexuals — that’s the place where we need to focus.

Regarding causes of obesity, a January 5, 2017 article claims, “Fat shaming — not lack of willpower — is why so many Americans struggle with their weight.”

In short, “Fat shaming — the process of insulting, bullying or stigmatizing a person for their weight — is an American pastime,” and this in turn creates greater anxiety and stress, which in turn leads to more weight gain.

To be sure, there is a lot of pressure on Americans today to have the perfect body, and without a doubt, many of us treat thin people more nicely than fat people (or, at the least, view thin people differently than fat people). And there’s no question that millions of Americans hate being fat and keep trying to lose weight, ending in failure and frustration.

As someone who was overweight (or even obese) much of my life, I have tremendous sympathy for those who struggle, and I abhor the idea of making overweight people, who already feel bad about their condition, feel even worse.

But it is deeply misguided to blame societal fat-shaming for people’s obesity, since the only reason I will be fat, barring a specific medical condition, is if I eat too much food, especially unhealthy food.

The article I cited here claims that there is scientific support for the thesis that “fat shaming can spike stress hormones that can increase weight gain,” and while there may be some truth to this, for every ounce gained because of a spike in stress hormones due to “fat-shaming,” there is surely a pound (or many pounds) gained because of lack of self-control and/or poor eating habits.

What these two articles have in common is a refusal to take full responsibility for our struggles, pointing a finger instead at others — the homophobes and the fat-shamers — rather than saying, “What can I do to correct a serious, health-threatening problem in my life?”

Funnily enough (welcome to my world!), a gay website recently attacked an article of mine titled, “Is It a Sin for a Christian to Be Obese?” It responded with this headline: “Anti-LGBT Radio Host Fat Shames for the Lord to Sell His Diet Book.”

Apparently, I’m not only a homophobe, I’m also a fat-shamer, and even though my article starts off with all kinds of caveats as to why people may be obese, even though I urge us to judge ourselves for being overweight, not judge others, and even though I wrote the article to lift people up not beat them up, I’m still a fat-shamer.

As the gay website states, “Brown does tell readers that God is not condemning them, but goes on to say: ‘I encourage you to confess your bad eating habits as sin, asking the Father for mercy and forgiveness, believing that Jesus paid for this sin as well, and trusting God for grace to overcome. With His help and with a good plan, you can do it!’”

This is fat-shaming?

What makes this all the more ironic is that, for years, critics have said to me, “You Christians are such hypocrites. You preach against homosexuality but you don’t preach against gluttony. And many of you are so fat!”

Of course, from a biblical standpoint, committing a homosexual act is far more serious than having a big bowl of ice cream, but now that my wife and I have written a book encouraging others to healthier living, rather than commending me, these same critics condemn me. Is anyone surprised?

The take-away in all this is simple: While there are many societal factors that contribute to the choices we make, we are ultimately responsible for those choices, and if we don’t like sleeping in the bed we made, we have no business blaming others for it.

Positive change comes when we take full responsibility for our actions, and with God’s help, radical, lasting change is possible for all. (For more from the author of “Homophobia Causes STDs, Fat-Shaming Causes Obesity (and Other Urban Myths)” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Will Higher Ed Boom or Bust Under a Trump Administration?

/0 Comments/in , /by

What does the future of higher education look like? While there has been much talk about how the Trump administration will impact K-12 schools, the picture for colleges and universities looks murkier. As a candidate, Trump was comparatively silent on higher education. Now that he has been elected, we have a slightly better idea of what approach he might take.

This has led to some commentators flying into a panic, with claims that Trump will destroy the market for higher education by failing to continue the policies of the Obama administration. While it remains to be seen what Trump’s approach will actually be once he takes office, however, there are reasons to believe that education could improve significantly over the next few years. That will certainly be the case should the president and his education secretary abandon or reserve Obama’s indefensible policies.

Let’s look at student loans first. Obama was obsessed with the idea that everyone should go to college, even if they couldn’t afford it or were not well-adapted to a liberal arts education. In an effort to push more people towards the college path, Obama offered government subsidies for student loans, and allowed students to refinance loans as well. Of course, when you lower the price of something, you get more of it, so it’s no surprise that student debt ballooned under Obama to $1.46 trillion.

Maybe saddling the next generation with mountains of debt could be defensible if it is used to increase career prospects and future wages. However, it turns out that when everyone goes to college, the value of that education — at least as far as the workplace is concerned — drops. This is not only due to the increased number of degrees, but the quality of them as well. When thousands of students who would otherwise not have gone to college suddenly show up looking for diplomas, the rate of failure will naturally increase. Colleges don’t like to flunk massive amounts of students since it looks bad, and invites accusation of elitism and mistreatment of minorities. Universities, therefore, have an incentive to let poor performance slide, and allow student to graduate who would not have made the cut a few years ago. Employers recognize this, and adjust their hiring expectations accordingly.

This is known as degree inflation. A high school degree once meant something. Now it is taken for granted. The same thing is happening with college degrees. While you used to be able to take a diploma to an employer to prove that you knew more than your competitors, that piece of paper now means less than ever, and certainly won’t guarantee you a job, much less a good one. This, in turn, is forcing more and more people into master’s and doctoral programs in an effort to stand out from the pack, which means more time out of the workforce and, you guessed it, more debt.

With the flood of new debt comes the increased probability of defaults, and that prospect is starting to spook private insurers, some of whom have announced that they will stop offering student loans, fearing another bubble not unlike the housing crisis of 2008. Destroying the private lending market means students are increasingly dependent on the government, where the lack of a profit motive further increases the risk of irresponsible lending.

There’s also the possibility that universities, benefitting from a new glut of government money, will simply raise their prices to keep student enrollment at a more manageable level and increase profits. In this way, student loan subsidies accomplish the exact opposite of their stated purpose, making education more expensive, not less.

Interfering in the student loan markets has further reaching effects than just increasing the cost and decreasing the value of a college degree. Funneling young people who might have pursued technical or vocations educations, or simply entered the workforce into liberal arts colleges distorts the labor market. The president doesn’t know how many people need STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) degrees — no one does — but by intentionally redirecting student choices, he pretends as if he does. Ordinarily, the market would sort students out by rewarding higher valued degrees, thus attracting people to those programs. By artificially lowering the cost of certain types of education, however, we run the risk of creating huge surpluses of unemployable students.

So that’s why Obama’s policies have been terrible for education, but what evidence do we have that Trump will be better? To begin with, Trump has been a vocal critic of the federal Department of Education, promising to scale back the agency’s funding in a significant way. Since the department has been the major agency responsible for meddling in student loans, this alone could be good news for education. Trump’s pick for secretary of education, although untested, also bodes well given her past support for school choice and a limited government role in education.

Trump also wants to require students to pay off their loans more rapidly, raising the current rate from 10 percent of the student’s income to 12.5 percent. This should reduce the accumulation of debt and force students to more carefully consider whether they want to take out a loan for a college education. Other positive steps would be to require university to share the risk of default with the government, and to reduce the role of government loans in favor of private lenders.

Perhaps the most promising sign for the Trump administration’s education policy is that he simply doesn’t seem that interested. During the campaign, Trump took a relatively laissez-faire approach to K-12 education, and barely mentioned higher education at all. In contrast to Obama’s constant meddling in the market, a president who just leaves colleges alone could be a welcome improvement.

It’s not all good news, however. Trump has also indicated a willingness to forgive student loans after 15 years, continuing the expectation that students can run up unlimited amounts of debt without consequence. Similarly, he has criticized the government for making profits off of current student loans, which indicates that he would lower interest rates, further distorting labor markets, undercutting private lenders, and worsening budget deficits at the same time.

The bottom line is that, as in the case of so many of Trump’s proposals, we really have no idea what he will do until he does it. It is safe to say, however, that he could hardly do worse than his predecessor. Not without some serious effort. (For more from the author of “Will Higher Ed Boom or Bust Under a Trump Administration?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘To God Be the Glory’: The Faith That Carried Clemson to Victory

/0 Comments/in , /by

Just after midnight Tuesday in college football’s National Championship game, Clemson quarterback Deshaun Watson, with one second left, threw the ball two yards to wide receiver Hunter Renfrow. The pass won the game at 35-31, giving Clemson their first championship since 1981. The typical college-football-win hysteria was there, along with the mandatory Gatorade dunk, obligatory press interviews and drunken bar scenes filled with screaming fans.

But if that’s all you saw, you missed the game. The real story goes much deeper — as deep as the faith of Head Coach Dabo Swinney and his players.

‘It’s What God Wanted’

As ticker tape rained down on the field and cheering fans formed a deafening roar, quarterback Deshaun Watson stood with a reporter for an interview. Still gasping for air following the game, his smile was electric. “I’m speechless right now, man. It’s what God want[ed]. He put us [here] for a reason,” he said. “I talked to one of my coaches and he said ‘It’s a movie and it’s going to end the right way. Just keep believing in God, and just believe in your teammates and everything’s gonna fall in place,’ and that’s what happened and now we’re national champs and it’s amazing!”

Watson was asked why he made the decision to attend Clemson when he originally wanted to go to Florida. Calling Florida his “dream school” and saying that he loved Tim Tebow and Percy Harvin, Watson said the decision was made after he found Christ in 9th grade. He began to pray, along with his ailing mother, about which school to attend and that God would lead him to the right decision. “The day I committed to Clemson, God was talking to me and I just felt like the timing was perfect and that’s what I wanted to do. I stuck through it and it was the best decision of my life.”

‘Only God Can Do This’

Head Coach Dabo Swinney, in a post-game press conference, said rival Alabama worked hard and was a great team, but in the end, his players worked harder. “They fought. They fought for every play,” he said. “I said it out on the field and I’ll say it again. For me personally, only God can do this … there’s just no other explanation for me. It’s not anything to do with me. It’s God working through me and the staff and these players.

“Alabama [is] a challenge. … we just kind of hung in there. We made some mistakes, really we played great defense outside of about three plays, four plays, great drive by them there at the end, unbelievable play, to get the first down there, but at the end of the day, we had one second. We got it done with one second left and we’re the National Champs. To God be the glory.”

Journey of Faith

Wide receiver Hunter Renfrow said being a walk-on player was a “journey,” and that he could never have imagined last night’s win back as a senior in Myrtle Beach. “It’s almost like I got knocked out in the third quarter and this is just all a dream. And credit — I think my faith in God really got me through.” In a locker room interview, Renfrow added that winning the championship felt “unbelievable.” “Just glory to God. Thankful for everyone who … got me to this point.”

The Real Story

The real story of Clemson’s win isn’t about the school having the biggest or fastest or strongest players — although Tigers worked very hard to get to the championship game. It isn’t about who had the most genial or magnetic personality — although Coach Swinney is known for having such a disposition. The real story behind the incredible win is that the men interviewed following the game — the coach and key players — exhibited and proclaimed their faith on the world stage.

Given the opportunity to remain silent, these guys held up Christ as their hope and reason for success.

Watson summed it up in one last interview question on the field. The star quarterback was asked what he told his teammates when he led his offense back on the field after Alabama had regained the lead very late in the fourth quarter. “I walked up to my offensive line and I walked up to my receivers and I said, ‘Let’s be legendary. Let’s be great. God put us here for a reason.’”

Here’s the ‘legendary’ game-winning pass:

(For more from the author of “‘To God Be the Glory’: The Faith That Carried Clemson to Victory” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Meryl Streep Slams Trump’s Deplorables: ‘Let Them Eat Wrestling’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last night at the Golden Globes in her speech denouncing Donald Trump and his voters, Meryl Streep reminded millions of Americans why we rejected Hillary Clinton, her party, and the media elites that tried to stuff Clinton down our throat. It’s also why Hollywood keeps making expensive politicized failures that choke at the box office, like the sordid anti-gun potboiler Miss Sloane.

We’ve suffered through eight long years of Obama’s preening, class-president speeches and empty, “virtuous” gestures. We have seen him and his designated successor fawned on by tame (debate-question-leaking) Ivy-schooled reporters and gorgeous, empty-headed celebrities. We know perfectly well that America’s media and political elites consider us the great unwashed, which is why they’ve been fire-hosing us for decades with toxic solvents like anti-male feminism, anti-Western multiculturalism, and anti-family hedonism.

And we’ve learned a thing or two. We’ve learned that pretty people who are talented at acting are pretty good at saying things which they know aren’t true — and doing so convincingly. After all, that’s their chosen craft. We’ve also learned how to recognize and dismantle the Elitist Lie 2.0.

That’s a whirring little time-bomb that lefties like to plant in every “narrative” they get their hands on, from Islamic terror attacks (they blame the truck, the bomb, or the gun — whose motives it is “too soon to determine”) to the kidnapping and torture of a handicapped Trump supporter (just kids being kids, where are their parents?).

Streep reached into her goodie bag and produced her own Elitist Lie 2.0, which she tossed out to America like a trinket we should treasure. This device has three active components:

1. A Phony Claim of Victimhood to Seize the Moral High Ground

In Streep’s speech she managed to cast as persecuted victims a roomful of fantastically overpaid actors, and the coddled film critics of Hollywood’s foreign press, who today are still picking through the goodie-bags they got from billion-dollar movie studios. She took up for these hapless victims as “the most vilified segments in American society right now…. Hollywood, foreigners, and the press.” From Streep’s account, you would think that cross-burning Klansmen were attacking movie theaters for showing films where interracial couples kiss, while Inquisitors burned piles of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker in public squares across America. What really happened? The Democrats lost an election. But that’s not supposed to happen.

Did Donald Trump threaten to end all immigration? No, he promised to enforce our democratically enacted laws that regulate the process. Did he campaign against “foreigners”? No, he warned of those criminal aliens who’ve evaded our laws, with the help of “sanctuary” cities and others who help aliens to flout the law. Has he threatened to infringe on the First Amendment, to silence the media which he considers biased? No, he has gone on Twitter to dispute things he disagrees with. Has Trump spoken of jailing those who criticize his position on immigration? Never — unlike Germany’s Angela Merkel, whose government has jailed those who oppose her influx of Islamists.

2. An Unearned Claim of Moral or Intellectual Superiority

Streep listed a number of actors from working class origins or foreign countries, and presented them as moral exemplars because of their “compassionate” performances which taught Americans how to “enter the lives of those who are different from us.”

Let’s try to unpack that. Apart from those who play themselves in cameos, every actor is paid to portray someone “different” from himself. And every movie we watch (apart from home movies) is about people “different” from us. That’s why it’s entertaining. All that Streep has done here is to describe what happens in drama — while trying to spin it as a form of heroic altruism. So the actors in 50 Shades of Grey were improving America’s moral tone by teaching millions of theater-goers about sexual activities that are “different” from what they’re used to — and those who made that movie should not just be highly paid, but considered part of a virtuous elite that is improving America’s ethics. Got it? We actors, by our very profession, are better than the rest of you helots.

Then she went on to peddle the false claim that President-Elect Trump mocked a reporter’s disability. That media myth is debunked in detail here. So Streep uses a false account of what a real politician said in his own defense while fighting for his political life in response to a reporter at America’s top newspaper, to cast Trump as a bully and moral monster, compared to those heroes of empathy (actors) who read the lines they’ve been given in the dozens of crass, trashy, manipulative movies that Hollywood dumps on the public every year.

3. An Implicit or Explicit Threat of Punishment

Standing atop the papier-mâché moral high ground which she claimed, Streep included a nasty, elitist little warning to the rest of America: “Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners and if we kick ‘em all out, you’ll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts.” Now, of course this is a jibe at the ignorant rubes which Streep imagines lowing and grazing in vast, lumbering herds between the Hudson River and Hollywood, staring slack-jawed at wrestling matches.

It’s also a threat: You common people need us, and if you keep voting the wrong way, we might just go on strike. We will turn up our noses at the million-dollar paychecks we collect for reading back the words that writers put there for us, and starve America of “the arts.” So watch your step, or we will walk. Seriously, that red carpet leads all the way to Canada. We mean it this time. …

These are people who voted, campaigned, and fund-raised for Hillary Clinton, confident that she could pack the Supreme Court with justices who would pluck every critical issue out of the grubby hands of voters. Meanwhile, our Meryl Streeps would offer cinematic carrots, and our Byerleys wield the stick, until every American learned to be worthy of his masters, or starved in rural obscurity.

Gotta love those Golden Globes! (For more from the author of “Meryl Streep Slams Trump’s Deplorables: ‘Let Them Eat Wrestling'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hollywood Celeb Donates ‘MasterChef’ Winnings to Terror Supporting Org

/0 Comments/in , /by

On the surface, it appeared as if Kal Penn committed a noble deed.

This week, Penn won the “MasterChef Celebrity Countdown” contest in a Fox TV special, securing a $25,000 donation for a charity of his choice. The Hollywood celebrity decided to give the cash to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

Penn, best known for playing Kumar in the “Harold & Kumar” stoner movie comedies, previously served in President Obama’s White House Office of Public Engagement. A committed leftist like the rest of Hollywood, Penn often articulates his political views on social media.

Though UNRWA postures itself as a simple relief agency for Palestinian refugees, its presence in the Middle East has actually worsened the Arab-Israeli conflict. Instead of solving the Palestinian territorial crisis, UNRWA has helped to move it into perpetuity.

Originally, the United Nations organization only recognized 750,000 Palestinians as “refugees.” But the U.N. has expanded the definition for Palestinian refugees to include original refugees’ children and grandchildren, which has expanded the total to above 5 million. This puts Palestinians in a refugee league of their own.

The U.N.’s other refugee agency, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), does not allow other refugees to pass down their status to their kids and grandkids. And also unlike UNHCR, UNRWA does not promote resettling their “refugees” into countries that might be willing to take them in. Instead, they keep Palestinians in an endless state of dependency, with an ever-growing roster.

Worse, the Relief and Works Agency has essentially embedded itself with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip. UNRWA has employed actual terrorists and Nazi sympathizers, and uses its U.N.-funded schools to push false, exterminationist, anti-Semitic narratives about Jews and Israel.

The U.N. outfit has been caught several times stockpiling missiles for Hamas in children’s schools, and the agency’s construction materials sometimes end up in Hamas’ homemade tunnels, which are used to infiltrate Israel and commit terror attacks.

The United States remains the top contributor to UNRWA. In 2015, the U.S. taxpayers contributed $380 million toward the agency’s projects.

By all indications, Kal Penn, like UNRWA, is not a big fan of the state of Israel.

In 2014, as Israel was under bombardment from Hamas rockets, Penn vented his frustrations with U.S. policy. He disagreed with the rearming of Israel in its battle with Palestinian terrorism. Penn took to Twitter, writing: “Wow, guess we’re not serious about a ceasefire.”

(For more from the author of “Hollywood Celeb Donates ‘MasterChef’ Winnings to Terror Supporting Org” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Society Isn’t Normalizing Mental Illness. It’s Medicalizing Normalcy

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a recent syndicated column published by Conservative Review, writer Ben Shapiro argues that society needs to stop “mainstreaming” mental illness, challenging the I’m-Okay-You’re-Okay mentality that allows people to engage in deviant or aberrant behavior without censure.

He describes a case in which a woman who enjoyed being led around by her boyfriend on a leash has disappeared, suggesting that the tragedy could have been avoided if she had been given the proper treatment.

But is it true that modern society is increasingly accepting of mental illness as normal behavior? In fact, just the opposite. Many things formerly considered within the bounds of normal human variation are now classified as illnesses and treated as such.

An analysis of the Fourth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) found that, based on its diagnostic criteria, 46.4 percent of Americans will have a “disorder” at some point in their lives.

But because the mind itself is allegedly sick, should people diagnosed with these conditions be robbed of their agency and treated like children at the whim of their doctors, their families, or the state?

The psychiatric profession insists that mental illness is “just like any other illness,” but this is obviously untrue. Bodily illness can be diagnosed objectively from a detectable pathology. The presence of cancerous cells in the brain leads to a diagnosis of brain cancer, even if no symptoms are presenting.

Mental illness, on the other hand, has no such pathology. How could it? The mind is an intangible, unobservable concept. Therefore, mental illnesses must be diagnosed solely based on a subjective interpretation of behavior. The symptom is indistinguishable from the disease itself, meaning that all such diagnoses are opinion-based rather than objective.

And how do we define mental illness anyway?

We’re frequently cautioned against treating delusions as reality, but who is going to serve as the arbiter of what constitutes reality? By this definition, an atheist would be justified in classifying all people of faith as delusional and mentally ill for their belief in a higher power. To an atheist, a believer talking to God is no different than James Stewart talking to a giant rabbit in “Harvey,” and given the chance, he will treat the two equivalently. Is that really a road we want to go down, especially when our political leaders are becoming increasingly secular?

At the core of the question is this: Are we justified in depriving individuals of their freedom, of forcibly hospitalizing (read: imprisoning) and medicating them against their will because they behave in a way that we find odd or difficult to understand?

It’s important to remember that, in the past, Americans were diagnosed as mentally ill for being gay, for engaging in masturbation, and, in the days of slavery, for trying to escape from their masters. Benjamin Rush, the father of American psychiatry, thought the consumption of alcohol and opposition to the American Revolution constituted mental illness. These perfectly normal behaviors were regarded as so aberrant as to justify depriving individuals of their freedoms “for their own good.” And while these specific conditions are no longer recognized as mental illness, far more supposed disorders have arisen to take their place.

Wanting to be led around on a leash is odd, bizarre even, but the claim that such behavior justifies imprisonment and drugging is incomparably more horrific. If any unpopular behavior can be called a sickness, only conformists are safe from oppression. And who wants to be a conformist anyway?

America is supposed to be a country in which minority opinions, beliefs, and behaviors are protected from the tyranny of the majority. Ayn Rand said that the smallest minority is the individual, and I would add to this that the individual with unaccountably odd behavior is smaller still. It’s all well and good to claim such people are irrational, but to that I will respond with two quotes from the great economist Ludwig von Mises.

From “Epistemological problems in Economics”:

The assertion that there is irrational action is always rooted in an evaluation of a scale of values different from our own. Whoever says that irrationality plays a role in human action is merely saying that his fellow men behave in a way that he does not consider correct.

And from “Socialism”:

If a man drinks wine and not water I cannot say he is acting irrationally. At most I can say that in his place I would not do so. But his pursuit of happiness is his own business, not mine.

I’ll leave you with this question: Whom do you trust to decide which behaviors are “correct,” and are you willing to surrender your pursuit of happiness to white-coated experts who claim to know better? (For more from the author of “Society Isn’t Normalizing Mental Illness. It’s Medicalizing Normalcy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.