Smug, Arrogant, Elitist Liberals STILL Refuse to Fathom President Trump

/1 Comment/in , /by

The question is not “is anyone surprised?”

No one who has observed liberalism at work for decades could be surprised that after a campaign in which they routinely attacked Donald Trump for supposedly being unwilling to accept the election results, the scolders themselves do precisely that.

The stories pour forth. Hillary Clinton lost because the Russians hacked. There have to be recounts in key states because it could change the results. Electors need to step up to the plate and overturn the voters. And on it goes. “It” being the attempt to delegitimize the Trump election and his presidency that will follow.

But why is this? Why this absolutely bizarre notion that, knowing the rules full well — rules for a presidential election in force since the founding of the country — there is this abrupt unwillingness by Clinton and company to accept defeat?

The answer surely can be tied to the longtime sense of moral superiority that has become a standard feature of modern liberalism. Let’s recall that instantly infamous statement of Clinton’s during the campaign. Note well the quote which appeared in the New York Times exactly as written below:

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” she said to applause and laughter. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Catch that descriptive line added by the Times? This one, inserted in the middle of the quote, that says “she said to applause and laughter.” This event, again no accident, was a fundraiser held with the elites of Manhattan in Manhattan.
And right there is exactly the real reason this election was lost to Clinton and proved a disaster for her party. The hard fact is that many liberal elites really do look down their noses at their fellow citizens who reside between Manhattan and Beverly Hills. And in this election this translated into an assumption that of course Hillary Clinton was going to win. How could it be any other way?

Take a good look at this Politico story from October 20, written in the aftermath of the third and last debate between Clinton and Trump. The headline?

The final debate was Trump’s chance to stop the bleeding. 16 political watchers tell us whether he succeeded.

The story opens with a brief recounting of the debate, then says this:

It was all pretty much routine in a campaign marked more by put-downs than policy discussion—or at least it was until Trump broke with centuries of tradition and told the audience that he wasn’t sure whether he would accept the voting results on Election Day. It was an admission that shocked—but also one not likely to be uttered by a candidate who’s confident, or even halfway confident, of a win on November 8.Indeed, over the past week and a half, as more than 10 women have accused Trump of sexual assault, he has been sliding in the polls, and election forecasters were giving Clinton around an 85 percent of victory.

And that unconfident candidate was, of course — Donald Trump. Among the sentiments of these sixteen “political watchers” were the following:

‘Trump surrendered whatever shreds remained of his credibility. Unlike Donald Trump, I won’t keep you in suspense. He didn’t lose the election Wednesday night; he forfeited it. Bigly.” – Jacob Heilbrunn, editor of the National Interest

But this will be remembered as one of the very few presidential elections in which the losing candidate mattered more than the candidate who actually won. Trump’s 18-month performance in a self-written piece he should have called “Make America Hate Again” repelled far more Americans than it attracted. Yet even before the final curtain goes down, we are wondering—no we are shuddering to find out—what crazy, destructive things he and his adoring followers will say and do next. – Michael Kazin, professor of history at Georgetown University and editor of Dissent

“But the matter of his win or loss will matter less if he takes our democratic institutions out with him—and that was all that mattered at the debate. … One moment crystallized precisely what the 2016 election is about. When asked whether he would respect the election results, Trump shrugged. “I will look at it at the time,” he told moderator, Chris Wallace. “I’ll keep you in suspense, OK?” No, not OK. Not at all. This isn’t the build-up to the season finale of a reality show. This is the basis of our representative democracy. Americans are not supposed to be waiting to hear Trump’s verdict on election night; he is supposed to be waiting to hear ours.” – Nicole Hemmer, assistant professor at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, co-host of the Past Present podcast and author of Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics

“This cake is baked. Any hope that Donald Trump could deliver a game-changing last-ditch final debate performance was dashed when he refused to accept the Election Day results. Everyone except for the most delusional Trump supporter knows that Hillary Clinton will be the next president. … But the truth is Trump lost this race the day he entered it, when he smeared Latino immigrants as rapists and criminals. He has never led in poll averages against Clinton, save for a brief convention bounce, because he never stopped being a candidate of white right-wing rage in a multicultural center-left nation.” – Bill Scher, senior writer at the Campaign for America’s Future, co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show “The DMZ” and Politico Magazine contributing editor

“Trump is on track to be the biggest loser in a national campaign since Walter Mondale.” – Katie Packer, a Republican consultant, adjunct professor at George Washington University and founder of the anti-Donald Trump super PAC Our Principles PACKatie Packer, a Republican consultant, adjunct professor at George Washington University and founder of the anti-Donald Trump super PAC Our Principles PAC

One could go on here. And on and on.

But without question the smug sense of elitist moral superiority over those vulgar, common people who supported Trump was unmistakeable. Is it any wonder that, dumbfounded at having so grossly misjudged the election, the elites would do anything other than exactly what they so vehemently accused Trump of being willing to do? Which is to say, not accept the election results.

No. Of course not. As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, it is a huge mistake to think that this flat-out refusal to accept the election results will simply fade once Trump is sworn in. This is going to be the modus operandi of the Left for the entire Trump term or terms. The subject will change — the underlying theme and tactics will not. Already former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich is pitching the idea that rich, liberal entertainers like Bruce Springsteen, Jay Z, Madonna and more do a counter-inauguration concert. Presumably to detract from the Trump inauguration and the traditional concerts and balls that have become staples of a modern inauguration.

It never occurs to any of these people that the reason Hillary Clinton is not going to be president of the United States isn’t because of Russian hackers or anything else. Simply put she lost because she — and many of her supporters — were too smug, too elitist, too arrogant and too condescending to voters.

And surprise, surprise those voters did not take kindly to it. (For more from the author of “Smug, Arrogant, Elitist Liberals STILL Refuse to Fathom President Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Middle School Girl Gets Suspended for Possessing a Butter Knife

/0 Comments/in , /by

Who would have thought a butter knife could become the center of a school controversy?

Last month, officials at Silver Trail Middle School near Miami, Florida, suspended an 11-year-old honors student for violating a county policy strictly prohibiting weapons on campus. The girl’s weapon of choice: a butter knife fit for a toddler.

To highlight the dangers of having this dull knife on campus, the police noted to state prosecutors that the girl used it to cut a peach. Such is the folly of overcriminalization: Every minor mishap gets crammed into the criminal justice system when it could be easily resolved by other means.

In defense of their daughter, the girl’s parents explained that they gave her a set of utensils “made for children to learn how to eat properly.” But despite this educational purpose behind the possession, school officials pounced when the girl brandished the short, dull, rounded utensil, cut a peach in half, and shared it with a hungry friend during lunch time in the school cafeteria.

A commonsense response? Give the girl a gold star for sharing. But instead, the county’s zero tolerance policy toward weapons required punishment.

The zero tolerance policy prohibits possession of a Class B weapon on school premises. This includes such items as razor blades, nunchakus, shotgun shells, and knives—including “blunt-bladed table knives.” Possession of these weapons is considered a criminal incident and can trigger a host of consequences, including not only a minimum six-day suspension from school, but also a mandatory report to law enforcement.

That’s failure No. 1 by the adults in the room. A student using a butter knife is not an incident that requires the time and attention of law enforcement.

And here is failure No. 2: After examining the evidence—a single butter knife—the police department turned over the investigation to the local Florida state attorney’s office, which is now weighing whether to bring criminal charges against the student.

A spokeswoman for the school district maintains that the school followed district policy throughout the incident, while pointing out that the district is working with the family of the suspended student by agreeing to reduce her suspension from six to three days. Needless to say, the family is not satisfied with the ongoing investigation and has hired a lawyer to represent them in the matter.

Surely, there must be someone along the chain of command with the requisite discretion to understand that an 11-year-old cutting a peach with a child’s butter knife is not the type of evil that a school weapons ban is intended to protect against.

The rigidness of a zero tolerance policy that requires taxpayer dollars to fund a criminal investigation into a student who simply cut a peach illustrates a systemic flaw in school discipline procedures.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident, but yet another example of an overreaction to minor infractions due to a zero tolerance school weapons ban, which can have serious consequences.

In Ohio, 10th-grader Da’von Shaw gave a class presentation on how to make a healthy breakfast, which included an apple that he sliced in front of the class. Da’von received a five-day suspension for possessing a weapon on campus due to his demonstration.

In California, high school senior Brandon Cappelletti was not nearly as fortunate. He faced a misdemeanor charge after school officials discovered pocket knives left over from a family fishing trip in the console of his car, which was parked on school grounds. Cappelletti narrowly avoided expulsion due to community outrage against the disproportionate punishment.

Cappelletti’s football coach opposed the severity of potential consequences by sharing, “I’m willing to stick my neck out for these kids because they are the kind we want representing us in society … I hope their lives won’t change because of an innocent mistake.”

Criminal charges carry a multitude of collateral consequences, which could have prevented Cappelletti from following in his father’s footsteps and joining the Marines. He enlisted shortly after charges were dropped.

In all of the aforementioned incidents, schools relied on zero tolerance policies that can produce harmful and unexpected results. To be sure, schools must take weapons seriously, but in a way that requires educators to exercise discretion in evaluating what is in fact a weapon, as well as the nature of an offense.

This one-size-fits-all approach to discipline is a significant contributor to overcriminalization, which is the effort to punish every mistake and attempt to solve every problem through the use of the criminal law and penalties.

This ill-suited suspension and investigation into an 11-year-old with a butter knife is an apt opportunity for school districts and localities to use a little common sense and re-examine how to handle rules violations in a more constructive and equitable manner. (For more from the author of “Middle School Girl Gets Suspended for Possessing a Butter Knife” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Saturday’s ‘Peace in the Womb’ Christmas Caroling to Shine Light on the Darkness of Abortion

/0 Comments/in , /by

Warm up your voice. A pro-life group is organizing Christmas caroling nationwide in front of abortion clinics to bring the “Christmas message of peace and joy to the darkness of the abortion clinic.” Pro-Life Action League’s “Peace in the Womb” caroling will be held tomorrow, December 17, in 60 cities across 28 states. This year marks the 14th anniversary of the event, initiated by executive director Eric Scheidler, son of Pro-Life Action League founder Joe Scheidler.

In an interview with The Stream, Eric Scheidler said that one of the motivations for the caroling event is the great sorrow he feels at the thought of a woman getting an abortion at Christmas. “It’s a weight they could carry around every Christmas,” he said. “At the same time, what a wonderful time of year to choose life.”

“We gather to sing carols, reminding abortion-bound mothers that the salvation of the world came through an unplanned pregnancy. … We want to offer hope, help and alternatives to assist women in choosing life for their children,” Scheidler said. “We’re there to really put the emphasis on the image of the Christ-child being born in Bethlehem so many years ago.”

The Christmas carols are selected specifically to “evoke this Christmas image that really is so powerful of the hope and the joy that came in the world through the birth of a child during a difficult time,” Scheidler explained. “Quite the unexpected pregnancy. And it’s a great example to all parents — saying ‘yes’ to life, even when there’s a tremendous challenge to it, there’s a great hope still available to people.”

The caroling elicits a much more positive response than any other activity the group does. “There’s something about Christmas carols, people — even the people who escort the pregnant women into the center for the abortion — enjoy the Christmas caroling,” said Scheidler. “The most powerful reaction is when women have decided not to go through with the abortion.”

Scheidler told the story of one year’s caroling in Chicago when logistics made their singing heard quite easily from inside the abortion center. The group sang “Silent Night,” and afterwards, a woman emerged from the clinic and told them she’d decided not to have the abortion because she heard the song and imagined Mary and the baby Jesus. “We’ve seen it again and again,” said Scheidler.

Forty groups participated last Christmas, and this year’s event will be much bigger. Thousands of carolers are expected to show up nationwide. Scheidler believes that the release of the undercover Planned Parenthood videos has contributed to the uptick in participants. He also believes that, now that the election is over, people want to be involved in something other than politics — to get out on the streets and make a difference.

In addition to Christmas caroling and depending on location, participants could hold Pro-Life Action League signs, provide sidewalk counseling and stand around an empty cradle — symbolizing the anticipation of birth as well as what would happen if an abortion takes place.

Scheidler prays this years’ event will make a difference for women and their unborn babies this Christmas season. “What we hope will happen is that a woman will choose not to abort a child because she hears the carols, or maybe the father hears the carols and thinks about what abortion really means, especially at Christmas time.” (For more from the author of “Saturday’s ‘Peace in the Womb’ Christmas Caroling to Shine Light on the Darkness of Abortion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Are We Entering a Post-Liberal Era?

/0 Comments/in , /by

In his December 9th article “Has the Trumpian Revolution Begun?,” long-time conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan dared to say that, with the Trump presidency, “we may be entering a post-liberal era.” Could it be true?

According to Buchanan, “Liberalism appears to be a dying faith. America’s elites may still preach their trinity of values: diversity, democracy equality. But the majorities in America and Europe are demanding that the borders be secured and Third World immigrants kept out.”

But it is not just political liberalism whose demise Buchanan is tentatively predicting. He also suggests that moral and cultural liberalism could be on the wane as well. He writes, “As Hegel taught, in the dialectic of history the thesis calls into existence the antithesis. What we seem to be seeing is a rejection, and a counterreformation against the views and values that came out of the social and political revolutions of the 1960s.”

What? A counterreformation against the radical cultural shifts and moral changes that came out of the counterculture revolution of the 1960s, a revolution that birthed radical feminism, gay activism, and sexual anarchy?

For years we have been told that liberalism had triumphed and that conservative morality was a thing of the past.

For years we have been told that “progressivism” owned the future and that traditionalists were a dying breed, soon to be replaced irrevocably by a younger, enlightened generation.

Could it be that America’s future is not as set in stone as we have been told? Could it be that the Trumpian triumph is part of a much larger social and cultural shift?

On the one hand, it is clear that Trump’s victory, along with that of the Republican party, was not primarily driven by moral issues as much as it was driven by other national concerns. Americans didn’t like the way their country was going — politically, socially, economically — and they wanted to regain control.

They wanted a greater sense of security, a greater sense of strength — Trump’s line that “we never win anymore” certainly resonated with millions — and a greater sense of Americanism, meaning, they didn’t want to lose the unique qualities that, in their minds, have made America what it is over the decades and centuries.

And while white evangelicals also turned out in large numbers to vote for Trump because they were concerned about their religious freedoms and about the makeup of the Supreme Court, with pro-life issues front and center for many of these voters, it would be wrong to think that the election of Donald Trump represented some kind of moral imperative — unless we look at things from a little bit different angle.

A Different Angle

Let’s focus on LGBT issues for a moment. While Trump did make overturning Roe v. Wade a consistent part of his message, he did not make overturning the Obergefell decision a consistent part of his message, actually saying recently that same-sex “marriage” was the law of the land. And the fact that he featured openly gay PayPal founder Peter Thiel at the Republican National Convention and that Thiel is playing a key role in his transition team indicates that he is hardly an opponent of LGBT goals.

At the same time, the vote for Trump was a way for millions of Americans to say “enough is enough” to extreme political and social agendas — even if they were not singled out by name — and leading the way in those extreme agendas is LGBT activism.

In a remarkable interview conducted at New York City’s famous Stonewall Inn, where the gay revolution burst on the national scene in 1969, Attorney General Loretta Lynch spoke with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow about the Trump election and its potential effect on the LGBT movement.

As reported by the Advocate, Maddow “asked Lynch if Trump and his homophobic potential cabinet were a backlash to marriage equality, hate-crimes legislation, and open military service.”

They genuinely feared that many of the victories they had won during the last eight years under the Obama administration could be undone by the Trump administration, and they perceived the vote for Trump to be a vote against LGBT activism.

Could it be that they rightly sensed a larger cultural shift?

In their minds this is all grim and negative, but could it be that Americans have had it with a small minority — whoever that minority may be — imposing their will on the rest of the country? Could it be that many Americans are sick and tired of having their rights subsumed to the rights of a radical sub-section of the populace?

The operative word for Maddow and Lynch was “backlash,” and that for good reason.

Speaking to Fox’s Tucker Carlson, Tammy Bruce, the openly gay, staunchly conservative radio host, stated that leftists, whom she called fascists, “now want Christians to preemptively prove that they pay allegiance to conforming to secular society.” She pointed to the recent liberal attack on Chip and Joanna Gaines, the popular reality TV stars, simply because they attend a gospel-preaching, Bible-believing church, a church that does not believe in same-sex “marriage.”

Bruce noted that the “great news” was that the attack on Chip and Joanna failed, also stating, “I think the election itself was a message about our rejecting of political correctness and the culture of intimidation.”

Precisely. And that is the heart of the matter.

Enough

It is not that tens of millions of Americans suddenly became homophobic or Islamophobic or xenophobic, as much as that tens of millions of Americans rejected the left’s “political correctness and the culture of intimidation.”

In fact, these three articles on National Review, written respectively in May, November, and December of this year, detail the progression well. First, by David French, “Identity Politics Are Ripping Us Apart”; next, by Kevin D. Williamson, “An End of Identity Liberalism?”; and then, by Kay Hymowitz, “Why Identity Politics Are Not All-American.”

Inevitably, at some point, the radical leftist agenda has always been doomed to fail, and there is now a push back against the left’s overplaying of its hand, which includes: forcing transgender activism into our children’s schools; declaring that phrases like “ladies and gentlemen” are transphobic and sexist; students at the University of Pennsylvania replacing “a hallway portrait of William Shakespeare with a photograph of lesbian activist Audre Lorde” — apparently Shakespeare was just too white and too male; and Oregon State University offering a course on “African American resistance to Trump.”

These radical agendas can only go so far before the people begin to push back, and that it is partly what happened with the recent elections.

Enough with the divisive ways of identity politics. Enough with the attack on traditional American values. Enough with the assault on our religious freedoms. Enough.

So, in that sense, yes, we are witnessing a larger moral and cultural backlash, even if some of these issues were not front and center in the Trump campaign. And to the extent we can make the case for a biblically-based, moral conservatism, one that treats everyone fairly but that recognizes that certain boundaries are healthy and good, we can turn the hearts of the younger generation as well as recapture the hearts of the older generation.

As my close colleagues and I have said for the last 15-plus years, on with the revolution. (For more from the author of “Are We Entering a Post-Liberal Era?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Major New Research Devastating to Abortion; Times Flips It the Other Way Around

/0 Comments/in , /by

Abortion proponents have been telling us for years the damage it would do to women if abortion were made illegal. Now a major gold-standard study has shown that argument to be fatally flawed. In a bizarre twist, however, The New York Times has reported on the research as if it favored the pro-abortion position.

The Times article, written by Pam Belluck, carries the headline “Abortion Is Found To Have Little Effect On Women’s Mental Health.”

Science journalism can be tricky. Sometimes it’s embarrassingly oversimplified, sometimes it’s distorted, especially on topics with potential political implications. It’s always important to consult the original source.

What It Says

Here’s what the actual research report says: Researchers compared mental health outcomes for women who had been granted abortions and those who had been denied it due to the baby’s gestational age. It found that those who seek abortions have similar mental health outcomes whether they are granted the abortion or denied it for reasons of law or policy beyond their control.

What It Tries To Say

But the Times tries to extend its findings far beyond that. For example:

Some states require women seeking abortions to be counseled that they might develop mental health problems. Now a new study, considered to be the most rigorous to look at the question in the United States, undermines that claim.

Is that true? No, because of what isn’t said in either the Times article or the original research.

What It Doesn’t Say

The research report says nothing about the effects of counseling women before abortion. All of the study participants had visited abortion clinics seeking the procedure. Some of them were allowed to abort, others were denied; none were actually persuaded not to have the abortion.

In other words, the study is completely silent on the mental health effects of deciding not to have an abortion, whether that’s because they know it is wrong, or they’re persuaded by family members not to have it, or even if there’s no facility nearby where they might hope to obtain an abortion.

So there’s nothing in this study that measures the effect of moral persuasion.

What It Says Again

If a woman chooses abortion but is coerced out of it against her will, her long-term mental health is likely to be the same as if she were allowed it.

What can we conclude from that, then, about the value of counseling or persuading women not to have an abortion? What can we conclude about the value of making a moral choice? What can we conclude about the difference it makes when a family member supports a mother carrying her pregnancy to term?

In other words, what do we really know (from this study, that is) about the full range of differences between having an abortion and not having one?

Practically nothing — except that being coerced out of having a desired abortion doesn’t seem to help the mother much. (It helps the baby. A lot.)

The Bombshell: No Evidence for a Major Pro-Abortion Argument
But there is more — and it’s a bombshell. Abortion proponents are so eager to tell us this study undermines arguments against abortion, they’ve missed its devastating assault on their own position.

They say it’s good for women to have “choice.” For example, “Reproductive choice empowers women by giving them control over their own bodies,” and “Women who receive abortions are less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied abortions” (abortion.procon.org).

Care to show some evidence for that? Previous research studies have differed on it. This “gold standard” study says there is no such evidence. Women who want an abortion but are legally denied the opportunity may not come out any better for it, but they don’t come out any worse, either.

In fact the evidence strongly suggests that legally denying abortion has no long-term adverse mental health effects on women at all. So much for that “pro-choice argument”!

Policy Implications

Is there any mental health argument in favor of abortion, then? Not according to this study. Women’s mental health ought not be a consideration in abortion policy — not because women’s health is unimportant, but because this study shows that legally allowing or denying abortion has no real effect on it.

Does this study give any comfort to people who want to end requirements for pre-abortion counseling on mental health effects? Yes and no; but the yes part is silly. Yes, where abortion is illegal due to the age of the child in the womb, there’s no evidence-based mental health reason to counsel women against an abortion. But what’s there to counsel about when it’s already against the law?

Meanwhile, though, this study says nothing about counseling (persuading) a woman to carry the child to term. This study adds nothing of value to policy discussions on that question — though you can count on many others acting as if it does, along with the Times.

But the big news is that there’s no evidence that legal restrictions on abortion have any negative impact on women’s mental health or well-being. (For more from the author of “Major New Research Devastating to Abortion; Times Flips It the Other Way Around” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Former Pussycat Dolls Singer Is Using Her Role in ‘Dirty Dancing’ to Spread a Powerful Pro-Life Message

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former Pussycat Dolls lead singer, X Factor (U.K.) judge, and “Moana” star Nicole Scherzinger is using her celebrity status to share her pro-life views.

In a recent interview with Daily Mail, Scherzinger discussed why she decided to accept the role of Penny Johnson in ABC’s forthcoming television remake of “Dirty Dancing.” In the original movie, Penny, played by Cynthia Rhodes, gets an illegal abortion, which threatens her life..

Scherzinger, a Catholic, told Daily Mail that initially, she was hesitant to play Penny because she “didn’t want to promote abortion.” But after consulting her family, she changed her mind. Her grandfather, a Catholic priest, prayed about the role and concluded that it was “what she was meant to do.”

“We decided that maybe I could be a voice, that I could shed some light on the subject without being preachy,” Scherzinger said.

Scherzinger’s comments will likely come as a surprise to those familiar with the sexy dance moves and promiscuous song lyrics of the Pussycat Dolls. But she says her mother’s decision to have her after getting pregnant at a young age helped to shape her views.

“My [mom] got pregnant with me when she was 17 and had me when she was 18. She chose,” Scherzinger shared. “Her parents were never going to let her have an abortion. So I came out, so I just want to, you know, encourage everybody to keep your babies.”

Scherzinger hopes that women watching the “Dirty Dancing” remake “can learn from her ways and I can be a positive influence.” (For more from the author of “This Former Pussycat Dolls Singer Is Using Her Role in ‘Dirty Dancing’ to Spread a Powerful Pro-Life Message” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Last Gift to Planned Parenthood

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Barack Obama has given Planned Parenthood a parting gift in the final weeks of his administration.

As reported by The Daily Signal’s Kelsey Harkness, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed a rule that would prohibit states from blocking Planned Parenthood from receiving Title X family planning services grant money for reasons “unrelated” to its ability to provide family planning services.

The rule has been finalized and will be published in the Federal Register on Dec. 19.

The rule was proposed in response to several states’ attempt to defund Planned Parenthood after the nation’s largest abortion provider was featured in a series of undercover videos released by the Center for Medical Progress last year.

The videos raised questions about whether Planned Parenthood illegally profits off the sale of tissue from aborted babies.

Just this week, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, referred Planned Parenthood and fetal tissue procurement companies to the FBI and Department of Justice for investigation and possible prosecution.

States—including Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin—redirected Title X funds to other entities, such as federally qualified health centers that offer comprehensive health care services to uninsured and low-income Americans.

After all, these federally qualified health centers are able to serve at least 8 times more individual patients than Planned Parenthood and they outnumber Planned Parenthood locations 13-to-1.

But the Obama administration is determined to block the states and give one last present to its political ally.

Thankfully, the next administration and Congress can ensure that this rule is short-lived.

Members of Congress have already warned federal agencies “against finalizing pending rules or regulations in the administration’s last days” and that should agencies refuse to heed the warning, members would work to “ensure that Congress scrutinizes your actions—and, if appropriate, overturns them—pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.”

According to the Congressional Review Act, Congress and a new president can overturn rules issued in the waning days of a previous administration.

The Congressional Research Service has estimated that anything submitted to Congress after the end of May 2016 can be undone in this manner, meaning there are many rules and regulations that the incoming Congress could and should vote to rescind.

The House Freedom Caucus has just issued a special report outlining more than 220 items across federal agencies that can be addressed next year, including the Department of Education transgender mandate, paid sick leave for federal contractors, and the Paris climate agreement on greenhouse gas emissions.

Incoming members should put Planned Parenthood’s parting gift on the list of items to address using the Congressional Review Act when Congress returns in the new year. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Last Gift to Planned Parenthood” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Highlights: Now Bringing the LGBT Agenda to Your Child

/0 Comments/in , /by

I grew up in a quiet and isolated environment in the woods of East Texas. I was home-schooled and home-churched. We didn’t have a television or radio. When my sisters and I received a Highlights magazine in the mailbox, it was a good day. We’d take turns reading the magazine, then read it all over again.

Highlights and Hello

Now that I have children of my own, one of whom is only 2 years old, I look forward to reading all of the fun kids’ books and magazines again. I was happy to discover that Highlights — a magazine geared toward children from 6 to 12 years old — now offers a book called Hello for the littlest ones ages 0 to 2. I was excited when my son’s grandmother bought a subscription to it for him.

Hello is just the right size and length for a tiny tot and covers age-appropriate subjects like being afraid of the dark or thunderstorms, or the anxiety around bedtime — or at least it did cover age-appropriate subjects until LGBT activists got their way. Highlights has recently announced that Highlights and even Hello will cover same-sex families in its pages.

A lesbian mother complained to the magazine in October about Hello’s lack of same-sex parents within stories (remember, geared toward 0 to 2 year olds!). Highlights responded on Facebook with:

We couldn’t agree more that diversity should be celebrated, and we strive to do that. … It has always been a discussion of ‘how’ and ‘when’ — not ‘if’ — Highlights would feature a LGBTQ family in our magazines.

Last month The American Conservative published a letter from Highlights in which the Editor in Chief Christine French Cully assured one subscriber that Highlights would “depict same-sex families in our magazines in a manner consistent to the way all diverse families are depicted.” She said all the company’s magazines

strive to be diverse in every way. The goal, however, is not to specifically call attention to diversity but instead to help kids understand that while differences exist, we are all actually more alike than different. … This is in support of our mission to help children become their best selves and understand that all families, including theirs, are important.

For a relatively few (about 125,000 families with same-sex parents out of 70 million households raising children), a once-clean, conservative and wholesome magazine will offend many of its readers.

Total Indoctrination

Sadly, this is not simply an issue about same-sex parents wanting to normalize their household situation for the sake of their little ones. It’s much bigger than that. It’s about the total indoctrination of our youth with values contrary to those held by Christians, beginning with our babies.

Indoctrinating the youngest among us is the surest way to change the world. The LGBT activists — and a handful of representative parents — seem quite intent on doing so.

Speaking as a concerned parent, same-sex orientation as a topic is completely inappropriate for my two-year-old. It goes against my core values and Christian beliefs and is not a subject that should be discussed in reading material for such small children.

Simply because one LGBT parent wishes to see her family’s lifestyle in a book for her infant or small child (as nice as that may be for her) does not make it morally or socially acceptable, regardless of what Highlights’ editor in chief believes. It is mind-boggling how for such few families Highlights is willing to change their wholesome model.

Children of Same-Sex Parents

A same-sex family cannot be described as “normal” or natural or healthy. Children of same-sex parents are twice as likely to suffer from depression and at greater risk for abuse, suicide, anxiety, stigma and obesity. Children are most likely to succeed when they grow up with a mother and a father.

It’s not something that a magazine should be pushing on very small children. I should not be forced to discuss an immoral lifestyle with our infants and small children if I want them to enjoy Hello or Highlights. This is a subject that must be left up to parents to discuss at a time and place they believe is most appropriate for their children, not imposed as a story line in a children’s magazine for two year olds. (For more from the author of “Highlights: Now Bringing the LGBT Agenda to Your Child” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Religious Leaders, Academics Sign ‘Preserve Freedom, Reject Coercion’ Statement Against LGBT Agenda

/0 Comments/in , /by

More than seventy-five academics and religious leaders have declared their opposition to laws that punish Christians and people of other faiths who practice beliefs that gender cannot change and that marriage is between a man and a woman. The signers of “Preserve Freedom, Reject Coercion” include The Stream Executive Editor Jay Richards.

According to the statement, thanks to laws across the country, “people of good will can face personal and professional ruin, fines, and even jail time, and organizations face the loss of accreditation, licensing, grants, contracts, and tax-exemption” for holding to traditional views on marriage and sexuality. The signers also declare:

We affirm that every individual is created in the image of God and as such should be treated with love, compassion, and respect. We also affirm that people are created male and female, that this complementarity is the basis for the family centered on the marital union of a man and a woman, and that the family is the wellspring of human flourishing. We believe that it is imperative that our nation preserve the freedoms to speak, teach, and live out these truths in public life without fear of lawsuits or government censorship.

Endangered Freedoms

While marriage was legally redefined nationwide in 2015, many state laws require citizens who hold traditional views on sexuality to act in opposition to their views. One of those laws has been challenged in Washington State by florist Baronelle Stutzman. Stutzman, a Christian who fought her case at the state Supreme Court earlier in November, was sued for declining to serve a gay couple’s “marriage” ceremony because of her religious beliefs. She faces bankruptcy if she loses the case.

A law that could have jailed pastors in Massachusetts for using biologically correct pronouns, meanwhile, has been modified to protect religious leaders. Christians who are not pastors still face fines and possible jail time if they use pronouns that don’t meet the government’s approval, or decline to open sex-segregated bathrooms to the opposite sex.

Many of these laws don’t just target just Christians, but instead an entire citizenry. Perhaps most famously, North Carolina’s HB2, which responded to a City of Charlotte mandate that bathrooms be opened to anyone of either gender, reiterated that business owners have the liberty to make their own bathroom policies. HB2 was declared by U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to be akin to racist Jim Crow laws that existed prior to the Civil Rights Era.

The religiously diverse signers say the laws “empower the government to use the force of law to silence or punish Americans who seek to exercise their God-given liberty to peacefully live and work consistent with their convictions.”
“As Americans, we cherish the freedom to peacefully express and live by our religious, philosophical, and political beliefs,” say the signers, “not merely to hold them privately. We write on behalf of millions of Americans who are concerned about laws that undermine the public good and diminish this freedom for individuals and organizations alike.”

The 79 signers included leaders from every Christian tradition. Among the signers are Russell Moore, head of the Southern Baptists’ Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and Albert Mohler and Paige Patterson, presidents of the SBC’s two largest seminaries. The list includes Catholics like Archbishop Charles Chaput, president of the Franciscan University Sean Sheridan, and scholar Robert P. George. Presbyterian theologian Peter Leithart and Orthodox scholar John Mark Reynolds also signed.

The statement was posted on the Colson Center website. (For more from the author of “Religious Leaders, Academics Sign ‘Preserve Freedom, Reject Coercion’ Statement Against LGBT Agenda” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Small Business Owner Didn’t Want to Make Shirts for Gay Pride Festival. Now He’s in Court.

/0 Comments/in , /by

A lawyer representing a Kentucky print shop owner who chose not to print gay pride festival T-shirts argued in a hearing this week that the government cannot force a person to create speech against his or her beliefs.

Blaine Adamson, owner of Hands On Originals in Lexington, Kentucky, turned down business due to his religious beliefs in 2012. He chose not to print shirts for the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization in advance of a gay pride festival.

The LGBT organization filed a discrimination complaint against Adamson with a local human rights commission.

“This case is about the expressive freedom of everyone, because if the owners of Hands On Originals must print messages that conflict with their beliefs, then there’s nothing stopping the government from forcing a lesbian printer to create a religious group’s flyer objecting a same-sex marriage or forcing a Muslim graphic designer to build a website promoting Jewish beliefs,” Jim Campbell, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal. “I think that there is a universal appeal to what we are arguing here.”

A Kentucky circuit court sided with Adamson in April 2015, saying that he had the right not to print the shirts. The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission had previously ruled that Adamson must print T-shirts, even if the messages on the shirts conflicted with his religious beliefs.

The commission appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals on the Fayette County Circuit Court ruling that overturned the commission’s decision. The oral argument was held Dec. 13.

“Protecting Blaine’s freedom protects everyone’s freedom, regardless of their beliefs or convictions,” Campbell said in a statement. “No matter what you believe, the government shouldn’t be able to force you to create speech that conflicts with your deepest convictions.”

Adamson’s lawyers say they believe he has the right to decline printing shirts that conflict with his deeply held values.

“The trial court’s decision rightly affirmed that, and we are asking the court of appeals to do the same,” Campbell stated.

Campbell told a three-judge panel Tuesday that Adamson does not discriminate based on a person’s sexual orientation, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported.

“Hands On Originals declined to print the shirts in question because of the messages on them, not the sexual orientation of the individuals who asked for them,” Campbell told the Kentucky Court of Appeals, according to the local news outlet.

According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, Ed Dove, a lawyer with the Lexington Human Rights Commission, said, “You can’t separate the message from the discrimination. That’s a red herring.”

Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian legal organization representing Adamson, said of the incident:

Blaine explained that he could not print a shirt bearing a message that conflicts with his faith. He then offered to connect the [Gay and Lesbian Services Organization] to another printer who would create the shirts for the same price that he would have charged.

“Hands On Originals, our client, regularly prints shirts for gays and lesbians,” Campbell told The Daily Signal. “In fact, Hands On Originals has printed promotional items for a lesbian singer that performed at the very pride festival in question in this case, so Hands On Originals has no objection serving gays and lesbians.”

Campbell said:

The owners of Hands On Originals object to printing anything that promotes sexual activity or relationships outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. That belief regularly requires them to decline orders from heterosexuals.

Alliance Defending Freedom says it expects a court decision to be made within 90 days.

“If they rule in our favor, then we’ll have to see if the commission decides to continue to spend taxpayer dollars to pursue this or if the court rules for the commission, then we’ll have to evaluate whether to appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court,” Campbell said. (For more from the author of “This Small Business Owner Didn’t Want to Make Shirts for Gay Pride Festival. Now He’s in Court.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.