‘Last Man Standing’ Was More Than a Show; It Was a Prophecy

/0 Comments/in , /by

The progressive mind is easy to laugh at and make fun of on a daily basis, but our charge must be to know our opponents more deeply than that if we actually want to defeat them.

What does it truly tell us when ABC cancels a right-leaning sitcom starring Tim Allen that had better ratings than several of the shows it chose to renew? And remember, your answer should take into account that ABC is owned by Disney, and we just saw what gobs of progressive politics have done to the health of what used to be an iconic sports channel.

It would seem that the bottom line for the Disney family tree isn’t always the bottom line.

While it may be obvious to say that propaganda is its first goal, that doesn’t really make the point starkly enough. There are plenty of business enterprises, or at least there used to be, that engaged in propaganda as long as they could financially get away with it. But once the proper pressure or blowback was applied, it served as a de facto cease-and-desist order.

Now, though, no such concern seems to exist. Entities like Disney, Target, and public institutions of learning like the University of Missouri seem unmoved or even self-righteous about the financial hit they are often taking. Their SJW street-cred appears to come first with them.

When you begin to see significant swaths of mankind largely forgo a self-preservation instinct like profit in favor of faux utopian wishcasting, you know why I call progressivism the heresy of the age. It is its own cult, for a hallmark of any cult is the forgoing of individual interests to serve the groupthink. And groupthink isn’t a noble cause worth self-sacrificing for, but rather an ignominious one that seeks to diminish and destroy the inherent value of the individual as an image-bearer of God.

Cults, which are counterfeits of true religion, can’t be reasoned with. Just like a true religion, they see opposition as a sign that they’re onto something. The devil doesn’t give up his strongholds without a fight. But when it comes to a cult, that isn’t opposition they’re seeing, but an intervention. That is people who care about you enough to try to stop you from sprinting towards Gomorrah, heading down the highway to hell, or stepping into the Twilight Zone.

While greed may not be good, as Gordon Gecko once said, the desire to make an honest dollar is as firm an assessment of cultural sanity as there is. It is a sign of belief in self-sufficiency, as one created with certain unique talents, skills, and gifts that the Creator wants you to maximize to their fullest potential. It is a reliance on the productivity of your fellow man instead of on his blind obedience, and as such all boats can indeed rise with the tide. The Keynesian zero-sum game is mistaken.

But progressivism is nothing if not zero-sum. The nanny state doesn’t like competition. It prefers slaves. And its total commitment would be admirable, if you ignore the fact that all the things you truly care about will be destroyed by it.

This is why one of my fundamental recommendations to President Trump, both before he took office and earlier this week, as I begged him to reboot his presidency, was to focus on tax reform and on actually repealing Obamacare.

The smart play, in a culture this morally dysfunctional, is to turn the momentum of the fiscal apathy associated with that dysfunction against it. You may not make much sense about God or marriage to the lost and forsaken in our current cultural matrix, for example, if you don’t seem to have any answers that put more money in people’s wallets. But if we can create a climate of prosperity, where the difference between Disney’s financial death wish and free markets would make Milton Friedman blush, maybe then we will stand a chance of turning America’s attention to matters of more ultimate and existential import.

True, this is a bit like getting Al Capone on tax evasion instead of on murder, but beggars can’t be choosers. Conservatives need a major win, and fast. Trump and this Congress are doing nothing with their 2016 wins. And if they can’t even get behind the good old-fashioned money train to make that happen, then the cult of SJW cred (not the “swamp”) is in fact king.

There’s hope, though. Even the Pilgrims didn’t get this right when they first came to America. With all their piety, their first attempts at living were socialist in nature and quickly crashed and burned — as the lazy sought to leach off the hard-working. That was their “first 100 days,” if you will. Thankfully, though, they had the leadership to critically look at why they failed and correct themselves, rather than whining and blaming elements they couldn’t control.

And now we come to the real rub, don’t we? Are there modern-day John Winthrops and William Bradfords willing to lead us through a necessary course correction in the White House and halls of Congress?

See, one of the reasons the spirit of the progressive age seems so daunting is it that has no real opposition. With a few noteworthy exceptions, we are an army without generals. Men without chests. Conviction without courage, and courage without conviction.

Until that changes, Tim Allen is not only a sitcom star, but also an unintentional prophet. Little did he know how prophetic the title of his just-cancelled show would turn out to be. (For more from the author of “‘Last Man Standing’ Was More Than a Show; It Was a Prophecy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Heads to Wary Israel in Search of the ‘Ultimate Deal’

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump will arrive in Israel Monday for the second leg of his inaugural foreign trip as chief executive facing several obstacles as he strives for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal that has eluded so many of his predecessors.

Trump’s two-day visit will include meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, as well as visits to the Holocaust memorial Yad Vashem and the Western Wall, an important Jewish holy site.

On the eve of Trump’s visit, Netanyahu’s Security Cabinet approved several confidence-building measures, including construction permits for Palestinians near their cities in parts of the West Bank that had previously been off limits, a senior official told the Associated Press. Under interim agreements, 60 percent of the West Bank, known as Area C, site of Israel’s settlements, is under Israeli control and Palestinian development there has mostly been forbidden by Israel.

Speaking on condition of anonymity in line with protocol, the official said the package also includes economic concessions and opening the border crossing between the West Bank and Jordan. (Read more from “Trump Heads to Wary Israel in Search of the ‘Ultimate Deal'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dozens of Graduates Walk out of Pence Commencement Address at Notre Dame

/0 Comments/in , /by

Dozens of graduates and family members silently stood and walked out Sunday as Vice President Mike Pence began his address at Notre Dame’s commencement ceremony.

Pence, the former governor of Indiana, was invited to speak after Notre Dame students and faculty protested the prospect of President Donald Trump being invited to become the seventh U.S. president to give the commencement address.

Pence spoke briefly of Trump, praising his speech to the leaders of 50 Arab and Muslim nations earlier in the day in Saudi Arabia. Pence said the president “spoke out against religious persecution of all people of all faiths and on the world stage he condemned, in his words, the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews and the slaughter of Christians.” (Read more from “Dozens of Graduates Walk out of Pence Commencement Address at Notre Dame” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Significance of Trump’s Historic Address to Muslim Leaders

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump’s speech before 50 Muslim leaders in Saudi Arabia did not break new ground in terms of America’s Middle Eastern policy. However, it was highly significant for at least four reasons.

First, Trump mentioned “terror” or “terrorism” 30 times. In stark contrast, during President Obama’s (in)famous speech Cairo speech in 2009, he did not mention terrorism at all. More importantly, President Trump spoke directly of “the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires.”

To fight against this, Trump urged, “means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.”

And remember: Trump said this in the heart of Islamic holy land, Saudi Arabia.

The president called on these Muslim leaders to “drive out” the terrorists from “your places of worship . . . your communities . . . your holy land, and this earth.”

Yes, these terrorists are currently in some of your mosques, and you need to drive them out.

To say that, in that setting, required chutzpah.

Trump also announced the founding of a new Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology, located in the heart of the Islamic World. “This groundbreaking new center represents a clear declaration that Muslim-majority countries must take the lead in combating radicalization.”

It’s about time that Muslim leaders were urged to combat this deadly ideology.

Calling Out Iran

Second, Trump identified Iran as the enemy, linking Iran directly and repeatedly to Islamic terrorism.

He called it “the government that gives terrorists … safe harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment.”

He labeled it “a regime that is responsible for so much instability in the region.”

He stated, “From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms, and trains terrorists, militias, and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region. For decades, Iran has fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror.”

He said, “It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this room.”

This had to sting Iran. And this had to be unprecedented for an American president speaking in such a setting. (Note also that some of the Muslim leaders there presumably want to see Israel destroyed,. Still, Trump spoke of this as evil.) Elsewhere, Trump mentioned Shias and Sunnis together. So he was stating that his issue with was terrorism, not Islamic sectarianism.

Not surprisingly, CNN offered an article critical of Trump’s speech. Tehran University professor Hamed Mousavi said, “It will be met with deep skepticism in the Muslim world because Trump has been hostile and offensive to Muslims — with his Muslim travel ban, for example. All they’ve seen so far from Donald Trump is a lot of hostility.”

What else should we have expected from an Iranian professor? His country was just slammed as a major agent of terror by the President of the United States before dozens of Muslim leaders. Should we have expected him to greet Trump’s words warmly?

Professor Mousavi also spoke against our new arms deal with the Saudis. He did raise a legitimate point regarding our inability to combat Wahabism, the fundamentalist expression of Islam that dominates Saudi Arabia and has helped spurn radical Islamic terrorism. But his critical comments should be expected, since Saudi Arabia and Iran are arch-enemies.

CNN provided no context to Mousavi’s critique, which must now be read with a big grain of salt.

Note also that Trump never proposed a generic “Muslim travel ban” (as claimed by the professor). That was the exaggeration of a hostile media and Trump’s political opponents.

Hamas and Hezbollah = ISIS and Al-Qaeda

Third, the president put Hamas and Hezbollah in the same category as ISIS and Al-Qaeda. This means that opposition to Israel is not a justification for terrorism. He said, “The true toll of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and so many others, must be counted not only in the number of dead. It must also be counted in generations of vanished dreams.”

The significance of this was not missed by a Lebanese professor, who, CNN reports, “pointed out that Trump equated Hezbollah, a Lebanese political and military group made up mostly of Shia Muslims, with ISIS and al Qaeda. Hezbollah was conceived in the early 1980s primarily to fight against Israeli occupation in southern Lebanon.”

The professor, Karam Makdisi, claimed this was irresponsible on several levels. “With Israeli rhetoric increasing against Lebanon, this does not bode well. The Lebanese will not put much stock in yet another grand speech, but they will keep an eye out for Trump’s position towards Israel’s threats against Lebanon, and any shift in US policy towards Syria.”

I’m sure that Prof. Makdisi was not the only Muslim intellectual who got Trump’s point loudly and clearly. To paraphrase: “You may call Hamas and Hezbollah freedom fighters against the Israeli occupation. We call them terrorists.”

The Sick Theology of Martyrdom by Murder

Fourth, Trump rejected the theology of martyrdom by suicide bombing: “Terrorists do not worship God, they worship death.”

He said, “This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it. This is a battle between Good and Evil.”

Trump also made clear that the victims of this terror are primarily Muslims. He said that “the deadliest toll has been exacted on the innocent people of Arab, Muslim and Middle Eastern nations. They have borne the brunt of the killings and the worst of the destruction in this wave of fanatical violence. Some estimates hold that more than 95 percent of the victims of terrorism are themselves Muslim.”

Somehow, another critic cited by CNN missed this emphatic statement.

Former Jordanian Justice Minister Ibrahim Aljazy said, “Referencing ‘Islamic’ terrorist organizations only will not be appreciated by the vast majority of people in the region when other forces are carrying out acts of aggression, especially as Arabs and Muslims are the prime victims of these organizations.”

Did Mr. Aljazy not hear Trump’s words?

Perhaps CNN needs to vet its Trump-critics more carefully. At the least, they should have qualified some of the quotes. But again, is anyone surprised?

Standing on Holy Islamic Ground

Turning back to President Trump, we can certainly debate his policies, actions, and words at home. (I am not Trump’s defender-in-chief. Not anywhere near it.)

We can question the propriety of the massive arms deal with Saudi Arabia. (Will this be used to finance terror? Will it lead to more bloodshed in the region? Is this good for Israel too?)

But we should not question the landmark nature of Trump’s speech, which also referenced the oppression of women and called on these Muslim nations to lead the way in repatriating Muslim refugees.

In short, an American president stood on holy Islamic ground and called on 50 Islamic leaders to fight against Islamic terrorism. This is highly significant. (For more from the author of “The Significance of Trump’s Historic Address to Muslim Leaders” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Major Entitlement Overhaul That Could Be Part of Trump’s Budget

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump’s budget proposal, to be rolled out Tuesday, likely will include Medicaid reform. But with several approaches having been floated, definitive answers will have to wait until the White House releases the fiscal plan.

During his Senate confirmation hearings in January, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said he would look at changes to Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor.

Medicaid covers about 70 million low-income Americans. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia expanded eligibility for Medicaid under Obamacare.

When serving as House Budget Committee chairman as a congressman from Georgia, Price advocated giving Medicaid funds to states in block grants as a way of providing more flexibility.

“Block grants would save the federal government money, but would shift that cost to the states,” Marc Goldwein, senior vice president for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan research group in Washington, told The Daily Signal. “When a state has more skin in the game, will it be more cost-effective? Yes. But perhaps not enough to deal with the new expense.”

Another solution, Goldwein said, is to cap “provider taxes,” which states impose on health care providers. He said states use the tax to get more money from the federal government without losing revenue. The federal government prevents states from taxing health providers more than 6 percent.

He said most states make deals with hospitals to increase Medicaid payments in exchange for taxing the hospital by the same amount, then go to the federal government presenting a need for a larger subsidy based on the larger payment from the state to the hospitals.

“If you phased [the state provider taxes on hospitals] out to 0 percent, it would save $100 billion” on Medicaid, Goldwein said. “If you cut to 5.5 percent, it would save about $10 billion.”

Fiscal hawks long have argued that the federal government’s main entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—are the key drivers of the national debt and deficit spending.

In March, four Republican governors—John Kasich of Ohio, Rick Snyder of Michigan, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, and Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas—touted their own proposal to reform Medicaid.

In a letter to Congress, the four governors said any reform should have work requirements, allow options on eligibility and what drugs are covered, and continue to allow the Medicaid expansion that occurred under Obamacare.

A better solution would be for the government to provide premium supports to encourage people to move on to private health insurance plans, said Robert Moffitt, senior fellow for health policy at The Heritage Foundation.

“Able-bodied Medicaid recipients, we’re not talking about someone who is disabled or in a nursing home, could receive a defined premium support to be mainstreamed into private insurance,” Moffit told The Daily Signal.

This would accomplish two things—reducing spending and helping patients, he said:

This Medicaid population would then have access to more doctors, since most doctors take private insurance and fewer are taking Medicaid. This population is also relative younger, which usually has a positive impact on the insurance pool. That could drive down cost for the rest of the American population.

Government data found 11.5 million able-bodied adults were on Medicaid.

In their recently passed American Health Care Act, House Republicans adopted a Heritage Foundation policy proposal that would change Medicaid to a per capita cap on funding for states that would be limited to medical inflation plus 1 percent.

Medicaid recipients’ access to doctors has become more limited, according to a study last year that found 1 in 3 available physicians don’t see Medicaid patients.

The White House Office of Management and Budget did not respond to email inquiries Friday from The Daily Signal about whether, and which, Medicaid reforms would be part of the budget proposal.

“I assume the reform will probably be tied to the House Budget Committee, and would propose to block-grant Medicaid, as the House Republican budget has proposed for years,” Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, told The Daily Signal.

Edwards said he also anticipates the Trump administration will go after waste, fraud, and abuse for all entitlements, including Social Security and Medicare. Doing so could save tens of billions of dollars, but still make only a little dent in budget deficits or the debt.

A report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, released Friday, dismissed tackling waste as a long-term solution. The report by the private group says:

Importantly, there is no way to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid even close to sustainable simply by reducing fraud. However, broadly defined program integrity—for example, reducing excessive provider payments and using competition or negotiation to get better prices in Medicare, restricting the ability of states to inflate their federal match in Medicaid, or encouraging and helping workers with disabilities return to work in Social Security—can represent a starting point for entitlement reform. Still, it would be impossible to fix Social Security and Medicare solely through program integrity—even using a broad definition—and, ultimately, tough choices will need to be made to bring the costs of these programs under control.

Of the three main entitlements, Medicaid is the most sustainable, Moffit said.

“You can’t get control of federal debt and deficits unless you address Social Security and Medicare,” Moffit said. “Otherwise, it’s just not going to happen.” (For more from the author of “The Major Entitlement Overhaul That Could Be Part of Trump’s Budget” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Calls for Middle East to ‘Take the Lead’ in Fighting Terrorism

/0 Comments/in , /by

Near the birthplace of Islam, President Donald Trump called for an alliance of Muslim-Arab nations to combat Islamic terrorism in his first major international address.

“Our goal is a coalition of nations who share the aim of stamping out extremism and providing our children a hopeful future that does honor to God,” Trump said in speaking to the Arab-Islamic-American Summit in Riyadh.

Trump, who spoke for about 35 minutes to more than 50 leaders of Muslim-majority countries, also announced many Middle Eastern countries were signing an agreement to prevent terrorism financing by establishing the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center, co-chaired by the United States and Saudi Arabia. Trump also participated in the opening of the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology in Riyadh.

Trump talked about the 9/11 attacks and the Boston bombing in the United States, and noted terrorist attacks across the world. He said some estimates show 95 percent of victims of terrorism are Muslims.

“In sheer numbers, the deadliest toll has been exacted on the innocent people of Arab, Muslim, and Middle Eastern nations,” Trump said. “They have borne the brunt of the killings and the worst of the destruction in this wave of fanatical violence.”

In a departure of sorts from both previous administrations, Trump struck a noninterventionist tone, asserting the U.S. does not want to “lecture” Middle Eastern countries, but he also called for the countries of the region to “take the lead” in fighting terrorism.

Trump didn’t use the term “radical Islam,” which he criticized the Obama administration for not using, but he clearly identified Islamic terrorism.

“There is still much work to be done. That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamists and the Islamic terror of all kinds. We must stop what they are doing to inspire, because they do nothing to inspire but kill, and we are having a very profound effect if you look at what has happened recently,” Trump said. “It means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.”

Saudi Arabia was the first stop in Trump’s first international trip that will include a stop in Israel, at the Vatican in Rome—covering the three major religions of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Afterward, Trump will meet with European allies at Group of Seven and NATO gatherings.

Trump seemed to have a very cordial meeting with Saudi King Salman, and the two nations struck an arms deal. Before Trump spoke, Salman said his nation is committed to combating terrorism regardless of religion or sect. He also reiterated that Islam was a religion of peace and criticized Iran.

Trump also criticized Iran for providing “safe harbor, financial backing, social standing for recruitment.” President Barack Obama’s administration led a multilateral nuclear deal with Iranian regime, but during the speech, Trump called for peaceful nations to “isolate” Iran.

Trump talked about “principled realism,” seemingly referencing the strong interventionist policy of the previous Republican administration, which he criticized during his campaign.

“We are not here to lecture—we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership—based on shared interests and values—to pursue a better future for us all,” Trump said.

“We will make decisions based on real-world outcomes—not inflexible ideology,” he continued. “We will be guided by the lessons of experience, not the confines of rigid thinking and, wherever possible, we will seek gradual reforms—not sudden intervention. We must seek partners, not perfection and to make allies of all who share our goals.”

But, the president stressed the Arab world must take ownership of the region, as he added:

Terrorism has spread across the world. But the path to peace begins right here, on this ancient soil, in this sacred land. America is prepared to stand with you—in pursuit of shared interests and common security … But the nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them. The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their countries, and for their children.

Trump stressed the clash was not between faiths.

“Every time a terrorist murders an innocent person, and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith,” Trump said.

He added it is a “battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions.”

“This is a battle between good and evil,” he added.

“Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: Barbarism will deliver you no glory—piety to evil will bring you no dignity,” Trump said. “If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and your soul will be condemned.”

Trump also spoke about how driving out terrorist can restore the Middle East to greatness of its past.

The true toll of ISIS, if you look at what is happening, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and so many others, must be counted not only in the number of dead, it also must be counted in the generations of vanished dreams. The Middle East is rich with natural beauty, lively cultures, and massive amounts of historic treasures. It should increasingly become one of the great global centers of commerce and opportunity. This region should not be a place from which refugees flee, but to which newcomers flock.

(For more from the author of “Trump Calls for Middle East to ‘Take the Lead’ in Fighting Terrorism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What’s at Stake in the Left’s Effort to Redefine ‘Sex’ in Pennsylvania Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

State capitals across the country are proving they are not immune to the malady that has afflicted the policy process in Washington.

The latest case in point: Pennsylvania.

In a quietly released statement issued late on a Friday afternoon, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, an agency of the state government, announced a proposal to effectively redefine the word “sex” in the state’s discrimination law to also include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” or “SOGI” for short.

This proposal wouldn’t change the law—only the commission’s “guidance” on the matter. But this new “guidance” would mean the law would be enforced as if it had changed.

This guidance comes on the heels of repeated failures to accomplish the same outcome through the legitimate way of changing laws—through the legislative process and with the consent of the governed.

It is a move that mimics the Obama administration’s executive and bureaucratic overreaches when Congress rejected LGBT demands for changes in federal law. It also represents a serious usurpation of legislative authority and an end run around our political system.

First, a little background and some history.

For more than a decade, LGBT activists have sought to add sexual orientation and gender identity language to Pennsylvania’s anti-discrimination statute. This has become one of the most hardly fought social policy efforts of the left.

Pennsylvania is certainly not unique in receiving such challenges from the social left.

It is notable, however, that Pennsylvania citizens have repeatedly been successful in stopping these proposals in the Legislature when most of the states in the northeast have not.

There are several reasons for this:

History

This diverse context has created higher sensitivity to laws that would police and sanction beliefs. Simply put, Pennsylvanians value tolerance.

Pennsylvania has a long history of tolerance, religious freedom, and protecting the rights of conscience. That heritage has drawn to the state a citizenry that represents a broad array of religious backgrounds and accepts those who are different.

Intolerance in Other States

As has been witnessed in other states, sexual orientation and gender identity laws and regulations have worked against universal tolerance. They have empowered government prosecutors and bureaucrats to force actions and speech that can cause a citizen to violate their conscience and religious convictions.

Just ask Barronelle Stuztman or Melissa Klein. Such coercive and punitive action by government undermines tolerance and only spurs division.

An Affront to Women’s Rights

Examples of this can be found across the country, whether it’s a biologically male adult changing clothes in front of girls in a swim club locker room in Seattle, or teens and children facing similar circumstances in their schools, or female school athletes seeing their opportunities for success evaporate as physical males are being allowed to compete against them.

Sexual orientation and gender identity laws have been used to suggest that restricting bathroom use by biological sex is discriminatory. This has forced policy changes that threaten bathroom personal privacy and, in some cases, safety. The result is often an affront to the rights of women.

These and other concerns, brought to the attention of Pennsylvania lawmakers by their constituents, have thus far succeeded in preventing a statewide adoption of sexual orientation and gender identity legislation.

This despite significant spending by national special interests and the hiring of some of the most powerful lobbyists in Harrisburg to pressure the House and Senate to cave.

That brings us to Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, Tom Wolf.

Wolf, named America’s most liberal governor, instigated a shakeup in the Human Relations Commission by demoting the chairman and installing a new chairman to further his agenda.

Now, in the face of a legislative stalemate, the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission is making an end run around the Legislature to impose a freedom-robbing policy through a bureaucratic agency that was founded to guard our civil liberties.

The Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission’s website, www.phrc.pa.gov, is inviting public comment on the proposed guidance via email to [email protected] through Friday, May 26.

“This change in guidance by the [Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission] effectively means a change in law, a change that would be devastating to personal privacy and religious liberty,” said Randall Wenger, chief counsel of the Independence Law Center.

“That’s why it’s important that lovers of liberty make their voice heard to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission during their public comment period.”

Lovers of the legitimate, constitutional lawmaking process may wish to chime in as well. (For more from the author of “What’s at Stake in the Left’s Effort to Redefine ‘Sex’ in Pennsylvania Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Federal Lawsuit Contends Transgenderism Is a Mental Disorder

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A Friday story from Reuters highlights a federal district court’s decision to proceed with a lawsuit from Kate Lynn Blatt – a man who imagines himself a woman – who claims that he has been discriminated against by his employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act because of his condition:

But U.S. District Judge Joseph Leeson avoided ruling on the constitutionality of the ADA, as the plaintiffs had sought, under the legal principle that courts should avoid decisions on constitutional grounds if possible. Being transgender is not considered a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association [APA], but it can give rise to gender dysphoria, a type of anxiety that may require medical treatment. Gender dysphoria forms Blatt’s basis for making a claim under the ADA. Leeson, from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found that simply being transgender would be insufficient to bring a case, but that gender dysphoria was a medical condition worthy of protection against discrimination.

According to an amicus brief from GLAD – a Massachusetts-based LGBT legal nonprofit – the explicit exclusion of “gender identity disorder” language in the 1990 version of the current law constitutes a violation of trans peoples’ constitutional rights. And that the “updated diagnosis of gender dysphoria (GD) in fact falls outside the scope of that exclusion as defined in the law,” implying that the law should be rewritten by judges as medical opinions shift.

This is where the rhetoric around the issue of transgenderism and employment law gets incredibly muddled.

There is currently another case moving through the federal circuit which makes the claim that being transgender should be held on the same grounds as race or sex. The plaintiff Kate Lynn Blatt found some receptive ears in the 7th Circuit, which went so far in its ruling to brazenly admit that it was taking the legislative task of rewriting federal discrimination law, rather than simply applying it, because Congress “may not have realized or understood the full scope of the words it chose” when it passed the law in the first place.

While this case invokes the Americans with Disabilities Act and demands protection under that statutory framework, it has the same end game of other cases that invoke federal civil rights law to claim that being transgender is no different than race or sex.

The American Psychiatric Association claims – at least according to the Reuters report – that gender dysphoria and simply being transgendered are two different things. The assertion, contrasted with the group’s own definition of the disorder, smacks of capriciousness and political correctness.

So the question then becomes whether or not imagining oneself to be a different sex than that of their biological makeup is something innate, or whether it is a mental disorder on the same tier as substance addiction or depression.

It is not something to be indulged. Nobody holds pride parades to celebrate the excesses of alcoholism, and nobody wants to inculcate grade-school children with the idea that the side-effects of schizophrenia are something to be revered and respected.

Nobody tells people with anorexia that they really are the fat person they see in the mirror, that starving themselves to make their body match their delusions is a compassionate response, and that anyone who doesn’t agree is bigoted. Rather, these are things that we view as destructive to the wellbeing of the human person — something to be addressed with charity, mercy, understanding, and, overall, some kind of correctional treatment.

So now there are two competing narratives before our judicial system. Either someone like Blatt is a woman simply because they say they are, or there is indeed a disorder at work that puts the person at odds with reality.

While some highly skilled philosophical contortionist in our court system may indeed find a way to make these two assertions work in tandem, these two assertions cannot coexist in an intellectually honest discussion. Either transgenderism is reality, or it is a disorder; it cannot be both. (For more from the author of “Federal Lawsuit Contends Transgenderism Is a Mental Disorder” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Considers Move to Devastate Obamacare

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump is considering a move that could devastate Obamacare and force lawmakers to take action to repeal the law and pass health care reform.

According to Politico, the president wants to end payments of “key Obamacare subsidies,” an action that would cause Obamacare to fall apart. Trump reportedly wants to force congressional Democrats to the negotiating table, but this sort of bold action is unpopular with some in the White House.

Many advisers oppose the move because they worry it will backfire politically if people lose their insurance or see huge premium spikes and blame the White House, the sources said. Trump has said that the bold move could force Congressional Democrats to the table to negotiate an Obamacare replacement.

Lawyers and other administration officials are trying to thread the needle.

These payments to insurance companies are worth an estimated $7 billion for this year alone. The government pays insurance companies to subsidize the cost of insuring low-income individuals. Without those subsidies, the insurance plans with regulations mandated by the government would become too expensive to offer, and insurers would be forced to exit Obamacare’s exchanges at a quicker pace.

Obamacare’s regulations and mandates caused the price of health insurance to skyrocket, making these subsidies a cornerstone of the law’s structure. The true cost of Obamacare has been hidden from the American people, like an open sore under a Band-Aid. Ending these subsidies would rip that Band-Aid off.

According to Politico, no formal decision has been made yet. Will the Washington, D.C., political class talk the president down to save their skins come election season? We’ll find out soon. (For more from the author of “Trump Considers Move to Devastate Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Levin Gets Down to the REAL Crisis Exposed by the Media’s Leaks

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin has noticed something the mainstream, liberal media seems to be conveniently ignoring.

An exclusive report from Reuters, citing anonymous “U.S. officials,” asserts that the Trump campaign had at least 18 “undisclosed contacts with Russians” during the closing months of the 2016 presidential campaign. Buried six paragraphs down in the report is the admission that there is “no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia” from these leaked communications.

No evidence of wrongdoing by the Trump campaign. That’s because the real wrongdoing is by members of the bureaucracy illegally leaking information to the press — information, Levin points out, that could only come from one place.

Listen:

“The only way that they know this is through the domestic surveillance, oh excuse me, the incidental surveillance information and the unmasking of Flynn, among others,” Levin said. “It’s the only way they know this information that’s being leaked to Reuters.”

“Once again, I bring us back, I pull us back to what the media are exposing but don’t know they’re exposing and don’t want you to believe,” Levin said.

“This is part of the domestic surveillance that took place. This is part of the unmasking of Trump advisers, Trump transition team members, Trump campaign members, American citizens. This is part of the unmasking of American citizens and abuse of power by the prior administration being used and being leaked to the media!” (For more from the author of “Levin Gets Down to the REAL Crisis Exposed by the Media’s Leaks” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.