Obamacare Repeal Must Be on Day One: Congress Has No Excuses

/0 Comments/in , /by

In less than three weeks’ time, when Donald Trump becomes our next president, he will take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

It is fitting, then, that Trump has committed to repealing and replacing one of his predecessor’s most infamous unconstitutional policies, the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. But he won’t be able to do it alone. Repealing Obamacare requires Congress to write legislation for the president to sign into law.

Congress can and should do this in January, before Inauguration Day. There is no excuse not to.

A lot has happened in the last eight years, since Nancy Pelosi first claimed “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.” Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber reveled in the “stupidity of the American voter” and “lack of transparency” that helped pass the bill, and President Barack Obama told PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year in 2013: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

The so-called Affordable Care Act was a mandate when Congress needed to shove it through, and it was a tax when the Supreme Court decided to look the other way.

Many thousands of Americans have lost their insurance plans or their doctors, or seen their premiums hiked up to unbelievable levels. Seventeen of the original 23 Obamacare insurance co-ops have collapsed. The massive centralization of health insurance has hurt patients and providers alike. And, of course, there has always been the rotten, unconstitutional core of Obamacare: the federal government forcing citizens to buy a product.

That’s why conservatives have been fighting against Obamacare for years. That’s why, since they swept the elections in 2010, Congress has voted over 60 times to repeal all or part of it.

They just need to do it one more time.

To avoid a predictable Senate filibuster from the left, Congress can employ the “reconciliation process”—a parliamentary procedure used to help the House and Senate pass budget bills. Obamacare repeal can be easily included in this legislation. We know, because Congress did just that to get a repeal of Obamacare on the president’s desk in 2015.

Then, Obama used a veto to protect his signature law. But in a few short weeks, Congress will be sending bills to a different president entirely.

Of course, this doesn’t mean we won’t see foot-dragging from some in Congress. When I was in the Senate, they would use every excuse to avoid fighting for conservative priorities. “Wait until we get the House.” Done. “Wait until we get the Senate.” Done. “Wait until we get the White House.” Done and done. There are simply no alternatives left but to repeal Obamacare and win the fight (a shocking prospect for some!)

Fortunately, Republicans can’t afford to throw conservatives under the bus on Obamacare repeal. Republicans have consistently campaigned on repealing Obamacare and won. It’s a promise that must be kept.

Many Americans care deeply about getting the government out of their health care decisions and finances. Being forced to live under Obamacare has motivated millions of hardworking people across our country to get involved in politics—abandoning them now would cause an electoral backlash to rival the one which put Trump in the White House.

Obama signed his namesake legislation seven years ago, and soon his successor will sign a bill to repeal it. But just as Congress made the original mistake of passing Obamacare, it must start working—now—to have that bill on Trump’s desk on Inauguration Day.

Once repeal legislation establishes a certain date when Obamacare will expire, Congress can begin a step-by-step approach to make health insurance more affordable and available for every American.

No excuses. (For more from the author of “Obamacare Repeal Must Be on Day One: Congress Has No Excuses” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Election Ushers in Batch of States Preparing for Right-To-Work Laws

/0 Comments/in , /by

Not only did the 2016 election bring the country a new president, but Nov. 8 also ushered in the right political environment for a batch of states to pass right-to-work bills.

Twenty-six states have right-to-work laws on the books, and labor experts are expecting lawmakers in at least three more—Kentucky, Missouri, and New Hampshire—to pass bills giving workers the power to choose whether they want to join a union or pay union dues.

“2016 was sort of the tipping-point year for right to work,” Ben Wilterdink, director of the commerce, insurance, and economic development task force at the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, told The Daily Signal.

“We just got 26 states signed on, and that was the tipping point, and we’ve crossed that threshold,” he continued. “2017 is now going to be the year of right to work.”

In Kentucky, Missouri, and New Hampshire, last month’s election resulted in a flip in party leadership in either governors’ mansions or state legislatures, which put previously defeated right-to-work legislation back on the table.

The issue pits the business community against labor unions, and has proved to be a contentious one for both parties.

Proponents of right-to-work laws argue that they force unions to become more accountable to their members and make states more attractive to companies looking to move.

But unions fiercely oppose right-to-work legislation and say that not only do such laws harm union membership, but they also lead to decreased wages and benefits.

Still, labor experts say they believe that the political landscapes in Kentucky, Missouri, and New Hampshire have created a prime opportunity for right-to-work laws to pass in each of those states.

“The world changed in November of 2016, and advocates of labor reform and for worker freedom are emboldened,” Vincent Vernuccio, director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center in Michigan, told The Daily Signal. “While you’ve seen the fire of worker freedom spreading brightly across the country, it’s now raging thanks to the November election.”

Kentucky

According to Dave Adkisson, president of the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, right to work has been a priority of the business community in the Bluegrass State for at least 30 years.

Republicans in the state Senate have pursued right-to-work legislation in the past, but the bills died in the state House of Representatives, which was controlled by Democrats.

But last month, Kentucky voters gave Republicans control of the state House for the first time in more than 90 years.

Now, with a GOP trifecta in the state Senate, state House, and the governor’s mansion—Gov. Matt Bevin, a Republican, was elected to a four-year term in 2015—Adkisson said business leaders are “almost to the point of [being] giddy.”

“One of the key elements of the labor argument is that right to work doesn’t matter to business, that they choose locations for other reasons,” Adkisson told The Daily Signal. “I can assure you that business leaders consider right to work as a major signal about whether a state is pro-business or not.”

Adkisson said international firms will typically hire consultants to help determine where in the U.S. they should move, and many of those consultants will “start their search only considering right-to-work states.”

For Kentucky, that ultimately meant losing out on economic development opportunities.

“Companies are not going to relocate to a place where they don’t think they can get a workforce, but invariably in that top list of factors is right to work,” Adkisson said. “You want to at least make the long list to be considered.”

Until recently, business leaders, particularly those in Louisville, were more “fatalistic” about right to work not passing Kentucky’s state Legislature.

But when Indiana—Kentucky’s neighbor to the north—passed a right-to-work law in 2012, “that suddenly got the attention of Louisville,” Adkisson said, in part because Indiana appeared “more pro-business.”

“It’s just a general issue of competitiveness,” he said.

Kentucky state legislators will meet for a shortened session, just 30 days, in January, so they have a tight timeline to pass right-to-work legislation.

Bevin said in September he wanted to see the state Legislature tackle right to work next year, but in an interview with the Paducah Sun earlier this month, he said he would allow the Legislature to decide how to address a bevy of issues they’ll face next year.

“I know people want to see right to work addressed, they want prevailing wage addressed, they want school choice addressed, they want tort reform addressed, they want tax reform addressed, they want pension reform addressed,” he said.

Still, labor experts say they are hopeful.

“Kentucky has demonstrated that the state is ready,” Jonathan Williams, vice president of the Center for State Fiscal Reform at ALEC, told The Daily Signal. “I’d expect it within the first half of the year.”

Missouri

While the success of right to work in Kentucky hinged on the makeup of the state Legislature, it was the election of Republican gubernatorial candidate Eric Greitens in Missouri that bolstered Republicans’ attempts to pass right-to-work laws in the Show-Me State.

Greitens, who defeated Democratic nominee Chris Koster last month, has stressed his support for right-to-work laws.

“I support it because it would stop companies and union bosses from taking a cut of your paycheck to support their political organization,” Greitens said of right to work on his campaign website. “It’s just common sense. That money is your money—and you should decide how you want to spend it.”

Republicans have a supermajority in the state House of Representatives and the state Senate, and already, GOP state lawmakers in both chambers have prefiled right-to-work bills for the 2017 legislative session.

“It’s going to be a race to see who is state 27, 28, and 29,” Vernuccio said.

New Hampshire

Williams, of ALEC, said Kentucky and Missouri are the “low-hanging fruit” for right-to-work proponents.

Though he and other labor experts are hopeful New Hampshire will join their ranks next year, New Hampshire is “somewhat on the bubble,” he said.

Republicans will control the state Legislature and the governor’s mansion in the Granite State after voters elected Republican Chris Sununu governor in November.

Sununu supports right to work and said earlier this month he’s “fairly” confident state lawmakers will pass right-to-work legislation next year.

“I’ve talked to businesses outside of this state that have clearly brought it up to me, so there’s no doubt by passing right to work, it will open up new economic opportunities for the state of New Hampshire,” he said in an interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader.

Still, the governor-elect encouraged state lawmakers to “be good listeners on both sides of the aisle.”

State lawmakers in the New Hampshire House passed a right-to-work bill last year, but it didn’t make it out of the Senate.

Though Republicans control the state government, Williams said there has been resistance among the GOP’s ranks.

Additionally, Democratic state Sen. Lou D’Allesandro of Manchester told the Union Leader opponents of right to work “have a good chance to stop it.”

Also at issue in New Hampshire is the dearth of other right-to-work states in the New England region.

Kentucky and Missouri are surrounded by states with right-to-work laws on the books, so they compete with others for business opportunities.

For New Hampshire, which would be the first in the region to become right to work, that competition doesn’t exist.

“There’s less pressure on them to get this across the finish line,” Wilterdink said.

Still, Williams said success in New Hampshire would be a “symbolic victory for conservatives.”

“If you saw the first state in New England become a right-to-work state—it’s been a tough region for conservatives to crack,” he said. “It would embolden right-of-center officials to push harder.”

Growing Momentum

Labor experts are confident that by the end of 2017, the number of right-to-work states will hover around 30.

Though they’re certain Kentucky and Missouri, at a minimum, will pass right-to-work laws, Wilterdink said lawmakers in three more states—Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico—will at least consider bills to make right to work a reality.

“We’re seeing a lot of movement and a lot of pressure, especially as businesses look at other states, especially as more and more states become right to work,” Wilterdink said. “States and their citizens are realizing they’re missing out.”

Republicans in Pennsylvania introduced right-to-work bills in the past, without success.

Earlier this year, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez committed to including right to work on her agenda for the 2016 legislative session.

Right-to-work bills have also been introduced in the Delaware General Assembly, but they were ultimately blocked by Democrats who control both chambers.

“This is a jobs bill in the states,” Williams said. “As more and more legislators are elected and looking for ways to make their states more competitive in growing jobs, we’ve continued to see businesses move from one state to another with better climates. This is one of the best things states can do.” (For more from the author of “Election Ushers in Batch of States Preparing for Right-To-Work Laws” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Leftist Policies Continue to Fail Chicago, but They’d Rather Just Blame the Police!

/0 Comments/in , /by

As President Obama finalizes his tenure in the White House, the city that he calls home has completely spiraled out of control.

Homicide has claimed the lives of over 700 individuals in Chicago this year, which is on pace to have its highest murder rate in about 20 years. There are about 10 shootings every day, with gun violence attributable for almost 650 of this year’s homicides. Tragically, detectives are unable to solve most of these crimes. Forbes.com reported in September that at least one person had been murdered daily in Chicago since February 2015.

It is arguably more dangerous to grow up in the inner-city of Chicago than to serve overseas in wartime Iraq and Afghanistan.

Niall McCarthy put it in great perspective for Forbes: “Since 2001, Chicago has experienced 7,916 murders (as of September 06, 2016). The number of Americans killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was 2,384 and 4,504 respectively since 2001.”

It’s easy for rabble rousing-groups like Black Lives Matter to sit back and continue railing against the police, but Chicago officers are hardly responsible for the skyrocketing murder rate. So, what has led to the spike in 2016? Many have their theories.

FBI Director James Comey has suggested that the “Ferguson effect” is at play. He believes that police are afraid to do the work necessary to make inroads in the community, for fear that the “viral video effect” of one wrong move or word will damage their reputations and careers forever.

The number of police officers on the Windy City streets has actually decreased in recent years. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel claims he has made plans to hire 1,000 additional officers. Emanuel campaigned on the promise to restock the ranks of the Chicago PD, but has yet to do so after five years in office. There’s plenty of data to show that stocking up on additional police units helps stop crime. Leaders in the New York City Police Department have long been proponents of such measures.

Some anti-Second Amendment groups insist that better gun control measures are the answer. But Chicago already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

While many of the shootings can be linked to gang violence, what is often overlooked is what leads young men to join gangs in the first place. Facing extreme poverty and a lack of opportunity, many turn to gangs as a means to survive.

Almost half of 20- to 24-year-old black males in Chicago are out of school and out of work. Instead of encouraging entrepreneurship and removing barriers to employment, government officials have decided again and again to raise the minimum wage, which economists widely agree harm the poor the most.

On the education front, Democrats have dumped tons of money into Chicago’s public education system, but the funding has done virtually nothing to change the tragically corrupt system. The unions have secured deals to ensure an 80 percent increase in teacher salaries since 1998.

As the Illinois Policy reported in April, Chicago teachers have “the highest lifetime salaries in the nation compared with the largest school districts in the U.S.” and “diverted almost $3 billion intended to fund pensions towards school salaries instead.”

So, what does the city have to show for it? Chicago’s youth remains poor — without hope and without opportunity.

Leftist policy initiatives have failed

Chicago’s most vulnerable. Albert Einstein is widely attributed with defining insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” As we ring in the new year, it’s time to stop the insanity that is failed Big Government, Democrat policies, and give the youth in Chicago a fighting chance to make it in America. (For more from the author of “Leftist Policies Continue to Fail Chicago, but They’d Rather Just Blame the Police!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Christianophobia Cost Clinton the Campaign

/0 Comments/in , /by

There’s no shortage of explanations for why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in November: the failure of Clinton’s own political machine, the actions of F.B.I. director James Comey, interference from Russia, and voter desire for a “change” from tiresome establishment politicians.

None of these tells the whole story. It took a combination of factors to bring about the greatest political upset since Harry S. Truman beat Thomas E. Dewey in 1948. But there’s one more factor that has been left mostly undiscussed: Christianophobia in the ranks of the Clinton campaign.

Inattention To Evangelicals Cost Her the Election

Much has justifiably been made of the fact that 81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump and only 16 percent voted for Clinton. In 2012 Romney won 78 percent of the white evangelical vote, while Obama won 21 percent of that vote. According to my calculations, if the same percentages of white evangelicals had voted Democrat and Republican in 2016 as they did in 2012, Clinton would have won Ohio, Michigan and Florida. (I was not able to find enough data to calculate what would have happened in Pennsylvania.). In other words, if Clinton had simply done no worse with white evangelicals in those states than Obama did in 2012, today she would be our president-elect.

Why then did she do so much worse with those voters than Obama did, despite their similar political positions on social and religious liberty issues? For one thing, she did not even take the time to ask for their vote — which is surprising, given that this group makes up about one fourth of the voting population. At least Barack Obama tried to court the white evangelical vote.

Voters notice these things. If a candidate is uninterested in you or what you have to say before an election, you can be sure she is not going to be interested afterward. White evangelicals had no reason to believe that Clinton respected either them or their issues of concern.

Why Did She Overlook Them? Christianophobia

It’s odd that a presidential candidate would ignore and dismiss such a large voting population as Clinton did. Why would she be so hesitant to treat white conservative Christians with respect? I believe that Christianophobia is the best explanation.

I have been studying Christianophobia — a highly intolerant form of antagonism toward Christians and Christianity — from the perspective of a sociologist for the past few years, and while I do not know if Clinton herself has Christianophobia, I am confident that many people in her political circle do. Those with this type of bigotry tend to be white, highly educated, politically progressive and wealthy — characteristics that are probably describe Clinton’s team.

Christianophobia Dehumanizes

Christianophobia dehumanizes Christians. In my academic research on this topic I encountered too many opinions from my respondents like, “I want them all to die in a fire” and “Would like to give them all a frontal lobotomy.” That kind of thinking represents a tendency not to see conservative Christians as fully human, and it’s one likely factor in Clinton’s choosing to ignore Christians.

Beyond this dehumanization, my research also uncovered a Christianophobic belief, held by many, that conservative Christians should not be allowed to participate in the public square. One respondent spoke for many by saying that “Christian Right people can do what they want in their churches and homes, but not in the public arena.” Couple that with other respondents’ opinions that Christians are irrational, bigoted, ignorant, childish, anti-science and backward thinking, and we have a strong case that people with Christianophobia want to keep conservative Christians locked out of serious political conversation.

From my research I think it’s safe to assume Clinton was surrounded by individuals who hold such beliefs about conservative Christians. It is little surprise, then, that she did almost nothing to court them. It’s easy to overlook those whom you think have nothing worthwhile to say. It’s also likely that Clinton and those around her did not want to be beholden to persons they considered so unworthy.

A Golden Opportunity, Missed

They missed a golden opportunity. This could have been an ideal time for Democrats to make inroads into the white evangelical vote. The Republican candidate was known for breaking up two marriages and having had numerous affairs. He demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the Christian faith (“Two Corinthians,” anyone?) and we had that video of him bragging about his exploits with women. Some Christians may not have liked Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, but no one questioned that he was a good moral man. This was a great chance for Democrats to play on Christian morality and win over a few white evangelical voters — they did not need many — to cinch the election.

But they blew it. I suspect the idea of appealing to white evangelicals was so distasteful to members of Clinton’s political team, they couldn’t bring themselves to take the necessary steps to get there. And thus it is that a thrice married, known adulterer with relatively little Bible knowledge received the largest percentage of the white evangelical vote in history. If Democrats and progressives do not want to hear “President Trump has been re-elected” four years from now, then perhaps they should recognize it’s time to purge the Christianophobic intolerance from among their leadership. (For more from the author of “Christianophobia Cost Clinton the Campaign” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

State Lawmakers Seek to Stop New York City From Destroying ID Records

/0 Comments/in , /by

A judge is expected to rule soon on whether New York City can destroy records associated with an identification program commonly used by illegal immigrants who lack Social Security cards or driver’s licenses.

Earlier this month, Ron Castorina Jr. and Nicole Malliotakis, Republican members of the New York State Assembly from Long Island, filed a lawsuit contesting a provision of the identification program that says the city as of Dec. 31 can destroy records, including the personal information of applicants.

City Council member Carlos Menchaca, a Democrat representing Brooklyn, co-sponsored legislation creating the city’s identification program nearly two years ago. Menchaca said the measure calling for destroying data was intended to protect illegal immigrant applicants in case a future Republican president tried to access their personal information for immigration enforcement.

Menchaca told the New York Post the clause was included “in case a Tea Party Republican comes into office and says, ‘We want all of the data from all of the municipal ID programs in the country,’ we’re going to take the data.”

Since Donald Trump’s election as president, immigration advocacy groups and the city’s Democratic leadership have expressed concern that the new administration could try to pursue information from the ID program to fulfill its goal to increase deportations.

“The fear is that the Trump administration has made a lot of threats [about] deporting immigrants and they could use this data against immigrant communities,” Thanu Yakupitiyage, senior communications manager of the New York Immigration Coalition, a group that promotes policies that benefit immigrants, said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

Castorina and Malliotakis, in interviews with The Daily Signal, said security issues drive their concern about the prospect that the city will destroy documents associated with the identification program, known as IDNYC.

“Our lawsuit has nothing to do with immigration,” said Malliotakis, who is a daughter of Cuban and Greek immigrants.

Castorina and Malliotakis, the only two Republican members of the New York State Assembly who represent the city, did not vote on the IDNYC program because the City Council created it.

But the two lawmakers represent 300,000 New York City constituents between them, and they said they followed the program’s implementation closely. They became alarmed in September when New York state’s banking superintendent issued a directive encouraging all state-licensed banks and credit unions to accept identification administered through IDNYC.

Malliotakis said she worries that someone with “nefarious intent” could use the municipal identification, which is easy to qualify for, to open a bank account to “finance terror or engage in fraud.”

If the city destroys records associated with the program, she says, it would make it more difficult for law enforcement to investigate potential criminal cases.

“This lawsuit is about the safety and security of the people of New York City and our nation, and maintaining transparency and the rule of law in government,” Malliotakis told The Daily Signal. “That’s what it’s about. Everything else is a side issue that is not directly related to why we are seeking to preserve the documents.”

Earlier this month, in the first arguments of the lawsuit, Justice Philip G. Minardo of State Supreme Court on Staten Island delayed the impending Dec. 31 destruction of documents until a full hearing is convened in the first week of January.

Minardo requested that Mayor Bill de Blasio or City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito—both Democrats—be present at the hearing.

“I don’t want to order the mayor or the council speaker to be here, but it would be helpful,” Minardo said, issuing an unusual request that reflects the weight of the challenge before him.

In January 2015, New York City introduced IDNYC as the country’s largest municipal identification program to help those who struggle to obtain government-issued identification, including illegal immigrants, the homeless, and victims of domestic violence.

Applicants must provide their name, address, and proof that they live in the city’s five boroughs, among other personal data.

The program does not ask applicants to reveal immigration status.

“IDNYC was advertised to New Yorkers as a badge of being a New Yorker, that you could get it regardless of immigration status,” Yakupitiyage, of the immigration coalition, said. “We were told this card is safe and the program ensures confidentiality.”

To obtain a card, an applicant can use a valid foreign passport or consular identification, along with a utility bill that verifies a city address. An expired foreign passport is acceptable for up to three years, in some cases.

Proof of residency in a homeless shelter for 15 days also can be a form of identification.

The New York Police Department accepts the municipal cards as a means of identification. They also can be used to enter public schools and libraries, and to get free admission to the city’s zoos and museums.

Roughly 1 million people have applied for the IDs. It’s unknown how many beneficiaries are immigrants living in the city illegally.

The law that created the program states that the city would keep records for two years of the documents applicants used to apply, and make them available only through a judicial subpoena.

Malliotakis said only seven cardholders have had their records requested through a subpoena.

The New York Times reported that 92 applications for IDs have been flagged as highly likely to be fraudulent, and the city has denied 7,130 applications because of insufficient proof of identity.

Castorina and Malliotakis say applicants’ records should be kept for the five years that an IDNYC card is valid, and that data should be made accessible under the state’s freedom of information law.

Lawyers for the city argue that law does not cover the release of private data, such as the personal information used to obtain one of the city ID cards.

Before pursuing the lawsuit, Castorina and Malliotakis filed a freedom of information request in November to get the records for all IDNYC beneficiaries. The city denied the request.

“We were not looking to engage in litigation,” Castorina told The Daily Signal.

Castorina says he supports the IDNYC program, and contends that it “fulfills a worthy purpose” by giving opportunities to vulnerable people, including illegal immigrants.

In the interview with The Daily Signal, he acknowledged, unprompted, that he backs providing a path to citizenship for immigrants now living in the country illegally.

Yet, through the litigation process, Castorina says, he has grown frustrated with New York City’s Democratic leaders, including de Blasio and Mark-Viverito. He accuses them of politicizing the municipal identification program and its clause allowing for destruction of data.

“To say this is the list that the federal government wants and will use to deport people is just complete political hyperbole,” Castorina told The Daily Signal, adding:

This is just politicizing the unfortunate situation of undocumented people, and it’s being done at their expense by instilling fear in their hearts and minds. And it’s also creating the prospect of a major security risk.

(For more from the author of “State Lawmakers Seek to Stop New York City From Destroying ID Records” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Remembering George Washington’s New Year’s Victory Over the British at Princeton

/0 Comments/in , /by

What began as a retreat from battle-hardened, bayonet-wielding British soldiers 240 years ago, Gen. George Washington reorganized into a counterattack after arriving with well-armed reinforcements in a place known as Maxwell’s Field.

This battleground in Princeton, New Jersey, is where the U.S. War of Independence reached a critical turning point.

“Parade with us, my brave fellows!” Washington is said to have called out to his troops, “and we will have them directly.”

A tall and imposing figure even by today’s standards, Washington was “an easy mark for any British soldier” while mounted on his white horse, historian David Hackett Fischer recounts in his book “Washington’s Crossing.”

But the British didn’t hit Washington. He rallied two broken brigades back into offensive positions, where they concentrated musket fire on British soldiers and forced them to clear the field.

The end result was a major victory for the Continental Army on Jan. 3, 1777, that would reignite the American Revolution. Historical records show that Washington’s maneuvers on Maxwell’s Field turned the tide of the battle at a moment when the British appeared to have the upper hand.

Here in the 21st century, another critical date has come to pass in the history of Maxwell’s Field.

The Institute for Advanced Study, an independent postdoctoral research center, and the Civil War Trust, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., devoted to the preservation of America’s battlefields, issued a joint press release Dec. 12 that came as a relief to historians and conservationists.

The Institute for Advanced Study, founded in 1930 and located in close proximity to the Princeton Battlefield State Park, announced it has agreed to downsize and reconfigure a proposed housing project for faculty. Local historians had said the faculty residences would have intruded upon that part of the battlefield where Washington arrived on horseback.

While the Civil War Trust primarily focuses on the protection of Civil War battlefields, it also works to preserve battlefields associated with the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 through what it calls the Campaign 1776 initiative.

Under the agreement, the Civil War Trust will pay $4 million to purchase almost 15 acres of land from the Institute for Advanced Study. The acquisition includes about two-thirds of Maxwell’s Field and another 1.12-acre tract where part of the battle was fought.

The Civil War Trust said it plans to transfer the land to the state of New Jersey so it can be added to the Princeton Battlefield Park.

The Princeton Battlefield Society, a nonprofit group founded in 1970 for the purpose of preserving the battlefield, had sought to halt the housing project by filing a federal lawsuit against the Institute for Advanced Study under the Clean Water Act.

In response to the compromise, though, the historic preservation group issued a statement announcing it will suspend litigation pending the outcome of the agreement, which must be approved by the Princeton Planning Board and the Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission.

The sale of the property is scheduled to close at the end of June 2017.

“We didn’t know how our litigation would have turned out,” Jerry Hurwitz, president of the Princeton Battlefield Society, said in an interview with The Daily Signal, adding:

While we would have preferred to see more of Maxwell’s Field preserved, it’s also possible we could have lost everything, which is why we are pleased with the agreement. This is the site where Washington’s leadership was so critically important. He actually rode out ahead of his own troops and was only about 30 paces from the British lines. It’s unusual for a general to do this.

The Battle of Princeton marked the culmination of the “10 Crucial Days” that began with what became known as Washington’s crossing of the Delaware River on Christmas night 1776, continued with the two battles of Trenton, and ended at Princeton.

Alexander Hamilton, who served as an artillery commander in the Continental Army under Washington, forced the British to surrender after firing cannon balls on Nassau Hall on the grounds of Princeton University, where the remaining British soldiers had taken refuge.

“What stands out from Princeton is the personal role George Washington played in turning the tide of a battle that could have easily been lost,” Hurwitz told The Daily Signal, explaining:

The first phase of the battle actually went very badly for the Continentals. The British had bayonets, but the Continental soldiers involved in the first phase of the battle did not. They were badly routed and were in retreat. But Washington arrived, took charge, reformed the American brigades, and turned them around to face the British with reinforcements. It was in this second phase that the battle was won.

The major fighting took place in and around an apple orchard that was part of a farm that sits on an elevated plane. This is where Brig. Gen. Hugh Mercer and his Continental soldiers clashed with the British army under the command of Lt. Col. Charles Mawhood.

On the American side, Mercer had about 120 soldiers from his brigade racing toward the orchard when the battle started, while Mawhood had about 450 men, according to records cited in “Washington’s Crossing.” However, more troops kept arriving on both sides as the battle raged.

Mercer had an additional 200 men from his brigade positioned a few hundred yards behind his 120 soldiers charging into the orchard. By the time the Pennsylvania militia, the Delaware Light Infantry, the Philadelphia Red Feather Company, and American marines arrived to reinforce Mercer’s brigade, Fischer estimates the Americans had about 1,500 troops, about three times the size of Mawhood’s forces.

Mercer died after the battle from multiple bayonet wounds inflicted by British soldiers who thought they had captured Washington. He was left for dead near a white oak tree that became known as the Mercer Oak, according to historical accounts.

Soldiers carried Mercer to a nearby house, where he was treated by Benjamin Rush, a surgeon in the Continental Army who had signed the Declaration of Independence.

In 1772, Thomas Clarke, a Quaker farmer, had purchased 200 acres from his brother, William Clarke. He replaced the house on the property with a two-and-a-half-story Georgian home that still stands.

What became known as the Thomas Clarke House was used as a hospital for both sides after the battle. Despite Rush’s efforts, Mercer died there nine days after the American victory at Princeton.

The original Mercer Oak lost a large branch after it was struck by lightning in 1973; strong winds in 2000 damaged it further. A young tree now grows in its place.

“The oak tree and its descendent are fixed points, so we know where Gen. Mercer had been wounded and how he died and where this happened,” Freeman Dyson, a retired professor of physics with the Institute for Advanced Study, said in an interview with The Daily Signal. “But the rest of the battle really took place all across town and across the countryside. The real battlefield includes the town of Princeton.”

The Daily Signal met with Dyson at his Princeton office before release of the joint statement announcing the compromise over housing plans. Dyson said he intends to live in the new housing, which he describes as “badly needed.”

The Institute for Advanced Study originally proposed to build seven single-family homes, but is moving forward with an alternative plan for eight townhouses in addition to the existing faculty housing.

“The institute has already very generously donated land that has been used for historical preservation,” Dyson said, adding:

There’s just no merit to what the institute’s critics have been saying. The idea that the Battlefield Park should exactly correspond with where all the fighting took place is absurd. You would have to demolish the whole town of Princeton, and you would have to demolish the building we are sitting in right now.

The Daily Signal asked the Institute for Advanced Study to comment on the dispute over the housing project and the recent compromise. The institute referred The Daily Signal to its online material, which includes a detailed overview of the new housing plans and its contributions to the Princeton Battlefield State Park.

In the online material, the institute also discusses where it differs with the Princeton Battlefield Society over some of the claims made by the preservation group about “key engagements” of the American and British troops and where they took place.

There is no dispute, however, over the significance and the importance of the battle itself.

“Washington certainly had some kind of military genius for knowing the right place and the right time to attack,” Dyson said. “This was the first straight-up victory over the British, and this is what everyone who had been sitting on the fence had been waiting for, and it also got the attention of people in Europe.”

The first Battle of Trenton following the Continental Army’s stealth crossing of the Delaware—in a snowstorm Christmas night 1776—had been a victory over the Hessians hired by the British, not over British troops themselves.

The Second Battle of Trenton, also known as the Battle of Assunpink Creek, was fought Jan. 2, 1777. It involved American delaying actions that prevented the British from reaching Trenton until nearly nightfall.

Washington slipped behind enemy lines that night and attacked the British in Princeton the next day.

“Trenton was man versus weather, which helped to give Washington the element of surprise over the Hessians,” the preservation group’s Hurwitz said. “But Princeton was man versus man, and it was the Battle of Princeton that saved the American Revolution since it was the first real victory over the British.”

Events commemorating the battles of Trenton are planned for Patriots Week, ending New Year’s Eve. The Princeton Battlefield Society partnered with the Historical Society of Princeton and the Morven Museum & Garden for a series of “living history” events commemorating the 240th anniversary of the Battle of Princeton.

Washington’s earlier crossing of the Delaware is “solidified in the national psyche,” Roger S. Williams, secretary of the Princeton Battlefield Society, told The Daily Signal.

But the Battle of Princeton, Williams said, proved to be the “pivotal battle that ended the 10 Crucial Days campaign and culminated in the British decision to end their occupation of New Jersey.”

“So the crossing of Washington’s army … was indeed a remarkable tactical achievement, but it was only one part of the story of the 10 Crucial Days,” he said, adding:

Princeton did not begin, or end, the way Washington and his commanders had intended. However, without that victory, the capture of the Hessians at Trenton and the Battle of Assunpink Creek would have all been for naught.

(For more from the author of “Remembering George Washington’s New Year’s Victory Over the British at Princeton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Healing Power of Fly Fishing for Combat Veterans

/0 Comments/in , /by

On 112 acres off Springhill Road in Belgrade, Montana, sits a six-bedroom, 10,000-square-foot home called Quiet Waters Ranch.

The ranch belongs to the Warriors and Quiet Waters Foundation, a nonprofit located 10 miles south in Bozeman that teaches combat veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan how to fly fish in the place that’s considered the sport’s mecca.

Roughly 10 times each year, a half dozen veterans spend six days in Bozeman learning fly fishing.

They arrive on a Monday and are outfitted with the essentials—fly rods, waders, boots, shirts, jackets, and other fishing gear—all of which the warriors can keep.

By Friday, the fifth day, participating veterans have spent three solid days fishing Montana’s ponds and streams.

On the fifth night, before the warriors pack up their new equipment and depart, they gather with Warrior and Quiet Waters volunteers at Quiet Waters Ranch for one final meal, the “Sayonara Dinner.”

And it’s there or in follow-up correspondence where the veterans really open up, Faye Nelson, the organization’s executive director, recalls.

They open up about the impact that six days spent fly fishing in Montana has had on them.

“What this trip did for me is beyond words,” retired Army Sgt. Scott Riddle wrote in a letter read at a farewell dinner in 2011, adding:

It was pretty overwhelming for me to come back from theater on a stretcher badly broken, both physically and mentally. I wondered what was left of the life that I had before I went, but I still remember my drive to answer the call, and I was willing to sacrifice it all because this is what Americans do.

What this trip did for me was to restore my faith that great Americans like the people of Bozeman, Montana, are worth defending, even if it means not getting to come home. This awesome community and this great organization didn’t just teach me fly fishing—they gave me the gift of peace.

Some warriors, Nelson says, talk about the suicide notes they’ve written, picked up, and ripped to pieces. Others have talked about returning home only to sell the gun they contemplated using every day.

“Those are the extremes,” she says.

But other combat veterans talk about how they’ve used fly fishing to connect with their children or spouses, or have decided to make it their new family activity, foregoing video games for time out in nature.

“Fly fishing and the act of fly fishing is very methodical and rhythmic, and it’s often compared to golf in … how rewarding and frustrating it can be at the same time in terms of getting it just right,” Nelson tells The Daily Signal:

That rhythm and the actual act of casting can be really helpful to someone who has traumatic brain injury or PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] because their mind can wander or get overly anxious at any time. It’s a calming activity.

Ingredients for Success

The idea for Warriors and Quiet Waters can be traced back to the merging of ideas from the program’s co-founders: John Baden, founder of the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment; Volney Steele, a retired military doctor; and Eric Hastings, a retired Marine Corps colonel.

Baden and Steele’s roles began in December 2006, when the two men began a conversation at their gym while both were on treadmills, Baden tells The Daily Signal.

Steele told Baden of his idea to design outdoor activities in Montana specifically for veterans who were wounded while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Steele wanted to mirror those services after the ones offered by Eagle Mount, a Bozeman-based organization founded in 1982 that offered outdoor activities—skiing, fishing, kayaking, and more—to people with disabilities and children with cancer.

The two specifically wanted to help those who returned home from war with psychological or physical injuries, the goal being to use the great outdoors and all that Bozeman has to offer.

“We have all the ingredients for success: superb fishing, exceptional air service, an army of top fishers, excellent fishing shops, and a strong tradition of helping others,” Baden wrote that December 10 years ago on the website for his Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment.

This new organization wouldn’t rely on federal money to succeed, Baden wrote, since such funding sources often come with strings attached—usually in the form of complying with costly regulations and other requirements—and could “corrupt or distort the mission.”

The only thing missing, Baden tells The Daily Signal, was what he calls a “social entrepreneur.”

That’s where Hastings came in.

Psalm 23

The retired colonel served in the Vietnam War and recalled, during flight missions, tracing “meandering ribbons that cut through the jungle,” according to the Warriors and Quiet Waters website.

Those ribbons reminded Hastings of the trout streams of his home in Montana.

When the veteran returned to the state after serving more than three decades in the Marines, he went back to fly fishing.

“He realized how special the act of fly fishing was in terms of being able to focus his mind and really find some hope and serenity in both the activity of casting as well as being out in the outdoors around here,” Nelson says.

Hastings and his wife had two sons in the military, and they were concerned about the growing number of veterans returning home with both seen and unseen injuries, especially when compared to those returning from past conflicts, she says.

So Hastings approached the Naval Medical Center in San Diego and asked to be allowed to take some patients fly fishing.

The hospital obliged.

In 2007, Hastings, Steele, Baden, and other volunteers hosted 14 veterans for a fly-fishing trip in Bozeman.

During the course of the trip, the veterans were housed in rented vacation homes and given fishing gear, instruction from professional guides, and home-cooked meals.

And so Warriors and Quiet Waters—the name conceived from Psalm 23: “He leads me beside quiet waters. He restores my soul.”—was born.

“Our experiences have shown that most separating from military service are experiencing feelings of isolation and that loss of purpose, that loss of a mission,” Nelson says. “Our goals are to decrease those feelings of isolation by fostering camaraderie and providing a new network of support, and also to help them find that greater sense of purpose.”

Relating to the Military Experience

In the years after Sept. 11, organizations aimed at helping veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began sprouting up.

Their missions run the gamut, from Team Red, White and Blue, which focuses on connecting veterans to their local communities through physical fitness, to Mission Continues, which focuses on connecting veterans to community service projects.

Indeed, Warriors and Quiet Waters isn’t the only organization that aims to help veterans adapt to life at home through participation in outdoor activities.

But research suggests that outdoor activities like fly fishing, which Warriors and Quiet Waters focuses on, can improve veterans’ mental health.

In 2013, the Sierra Club Military Families and Veterans Initiative and researchers from the University of Michigan conducted a study examining the effects that group- and nature-based recreational programs such as fly fishing, whitewater rafting, and backpacking have on veterans.

Participating veterans were surveyed one week before, one week after, and one month after participating in one of 12 different programs lasting four to seven days. None of the programs included structured therapy.

According to the study, those surveyed one week after their outdoor experience reported gains in psychological well-being, social functioning, and life outlook.

“The types of activities they’re doing are in many ways not that dissimilar from aspects of the military experience,” Jason Duvall, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Michigan and author of the study, tells The Daily Signal. “You’re creating an experience that resonates strongly with where veterans are at and aspects of the military experience that many found to be valuable and rewarding.”

So far, extensive research has looked at outdoor recreation and contact with nature, but little research exists on how those experiences can affect veterans specifically.

The research by Duvall and co-author Rachel Kaplan indicates that the gains veterans reported one week after their outdoor experiences were, in part, related to the positive effect the natural environment can have on one’s emotional state.

But Duvall also attributes the positive results to the programs’ participants:

If you think about where veterans are going to be coming from, they’re going to be in situations where other people don’t have the same kinds of experiences as them. The mental models that they have are not shared with other people they’re going to come into contact with. That’s going to leave them feeling a little detached and misunderstood. Being able to get into a group of other veterans, all of a sudden you have a group where they share the same perspective and mental models.

‘A Ripple Effect’

In 2016, Warriors and Quiet Waters hosted 10 fishing outings, held April through October.

Warriors can participate in one of three “experiences”—a solo fishing, alumni fishing, or couples fishing. Each spans six days, with three full days spent out on the water fly fishing.

The alumni fishing experience pairs first-time participants with previous participants, who are encouraged to mentor new attendees.

“It really helps people open up and confide in one another, and trust and know that there’s not only the military experience but the combat experience,” Nelson says. “It really deepens the bonds within the group.”

The couples experience is designed for warriors who have participated in solo fishing and return with their spouses.

“To us, it’s important to (a) recognize their service, since so many of them are the primary caregivers to warriors dealing with seen and unseen injuries, and (b) to really better the family,” Nelson says. “We want to have a ripple effect to marriages and children.”

During each outing, Warriors and Quiet Waters hosts six veterans—or six couples—at a time. Participating veterans may be from any branch of the military, but must have seen combat in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation New Dawn. Some arriving warriors have visible injuries, while others may struggle with wounds that can’t be seen by the naked eye.

‘Home Environment’

Next year, Warriors and Quiet Waters will celebrate its 10-year anniversary.

In nearly a decade, the organization has served more than 336 combat veterans and 89 spouses, many of whom have returned, with the help of nearly 1,000 volunteers.

In 2016 alone, the organization served more than 70 combat veterans and 12 spouses or caregivers.

During past fishing experiences, warriors lodged at rented vacation homes in the Bozeman-area. But in May 2015, Warriors and Quiet Waters purchased a $3 million property that ultimately would become Quiet Waters Ranch.

Volunteer “moms” make breakfast and dinner from scratch.

“We really want them to feel like they’re in a home environment, not a rehabilitation facility or institution,” Nelson says.

In 2017, Nelson says, she hopes Warriors and Quiet Waters will expand its programming to include professional development and entrepreneurship classes, or offer help with finances or relationship-building.

But fly fishing will always be a component of what Warriors and Quiet Waters does.

“We are all responsible for going to war and letting our Congress put us in those situations,” Nelson says, “so we’re all responsible for taking care of the people that stepped up to the plate.” (For more from the author of “The Healing Power of Fly Fishing for Combat Veterans” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

15,479 Syrian Refugees Have Been Admitted This Year – 98.8% Are Muslims

/0 Comments/in , , /by

In its last full month in office, the Obama administration has admitted 1,307 more Syrian refugees – pushing the 2016 calendar year total to 15,479, a 606.1 percent increase from the numbers resettled in the U.S. in 2015.

Of the 15,479 Syrian refugees admitted by the end of Thursday:

–15,302 (98.8 percent) are Muslims – 15,134 Sunnis, 29 Shi’a, and 139 other Muslims

–125 (0.8 percent) are Christians – 32 Catholics, 32 Orthodox, five Protestants, four Jehovah’s Witnesses, and 52 refugees described only as “Christian” in State Department Refugee Processing Center data

–43(0.27 percent) are Yazidis

(Read more from “15,479 Syrian Refugees Have Been Admitted This Year – 98.8% Are Muslims” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Out of Control: Obama Seizes yet Another 1.65 Million Acres of American Land for the Feds

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a bold rebuke of Utah’s entire congressional delegation, President Obama seized nearly 1.35 million acres of land in southeastern Utah to create the Bears Ears Monument in San Juan County, Utah, this week. Obama also claimed 300,000 acres in Clark County, Nev., as the Gold Butte National Monument.

For months, Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah (A, 100%), and Congressmen Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah (C, 76%) and Rob Bishop, R-Utah (D, 65%) were vocal in their opposition to President Obama unilaterally designating over a million acres of their state’s land as a national monument, without any input from any elected officials.

“He’s doing this despite open opposition from every elected official from San Juan County … and with the open opposition of all six members of Utah’s congressional delegation, and with the open opposition of every statewide elected official in the state of Utah,” Senator Lee said on Facebook Live shortly after President Obama’s announcement.

Rep. Chaffetz pointed out that the White House announcement of the Bears Ears land grab unwittingly showcases a picture of Arches National Park, which is a completely separate area.

The combined seizure of 1.65 million acres in Utah and Nevada this week means that President Obama has seized 553 million acres under the 1906 Antiquities Act. But Obama has seized more land and water than any other American president for the federal government — ever.

Sen. Lee, Rep. Chaffetz, and Rep. Bishop are vowing to fight Obama’s Bears Ears National Monument designation in Congress and with the Trump administration next year.

“If there’s one thing we learned about the 2016 election cycle, it’s that the American people are tired of having things simply dictated to them from people in Washington, D.C.,” said Sen. Lee on Wednesday, stating the top-down government control over the American people is nothing less than “chilling.” (For more from the author of “Out of Control: Obama Seizes yet Another 1.65 Million Acres of American Land for the Feds” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Looking Back: A Snapshot of Religious Liberty in 2016

/0 Comments/in , /by

It’s been a difficult year for religious freedom in America, but the future holds “huge windows of opportunity,” says Kelly Shackelford, constitutional attorney and president of the non-profit religious liberty law firm First Liberty Institute.

Shackelford spoke with The Stream regarding the state of religious freedom in 2016, and what Americans need to watch out for in the future.

“The biggest danger area is religious liberty in the workplace,” Shackelford said, citing people like lay-minister Eric Walsh, bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein, and Marine Monifa Sterling (whose case has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court) as examples of people who have lost their jobs because of their religious beliefs.

“It is very dangerous if religious freedom is banned from the place people spend most of their waking hours,” Shackelford said. “If people are forced to choose between feeding their family and religious freedom, religious freedom could disappear.”

Crack Down on Religious Expression

2016 saw an “increase in attacks on religious liberty,” Shackelford said. He said that one incident that “stands out” is the case of Oscar Rodriguez, an Air Force veteran who was physically removed from a colleague’s retirement ceremony because he was giving a flag-folding speech that included the word “God.”

“It was a first, with uniformed military laying hands on a citizen because he mentioned God,” Shackelford said.

While the assault on Rodriguez’s free religious expression was physical and blatant, others were more subtle.

In September, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report that called religious freedom a code word for intolerance. Martin Castro, author of the 307-page report entitled Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties, wrote:

The phrases “religious liberty” and “religious freedom” will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance.

As Stream senior editor Tom Gilson wrote in a response:

He’s [Castro’s] pronouncing conservative Christian doctrine wrong. That’s not his job. Apparently he doesn’t know that the First Amendment was written to prevent governmental officials from giving one religious doctrine preference over another.

Some states implemented policies aligning with Castro’s logic, passing so-called anti-discrimination regulations that mandating how businesses, including churches, can use their facilities or talk about gender. In effect, laws like these could result in punishment for religious groups and churches who adhere to a biblical understanding of gender and sexuality.

Churches in Iowa and Michigan pushed back.

Both First Liberty Institute and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), another non-profit legal group, represented churches in Iowa that challenged a policy published by the state’s Civil Rights Commission, which defined churches as places of public accommodation, making them subject to the Commission’s rules regarding the use of bathroom facilities and speech regarding gender.

ADF also helped a church in Michigan challenge a law that would have potentially jailed pastors who spoke against same-sex marriage.

Both the Iowa Commission and Michigan backed off of or altered the regulations after legal action from First liberty and ADF.

Several religious groups and faith-based non-profits also faced a dilemma under Obamacare’s Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate, which requires employers to cover contraceptives for their employees.

While the Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby settled the issue in favor of faith-based for-profit businesses in 2014, religious non-profit groups fought the mandate in 2016.

A group of nuns called the Little Sisters of the Poor became the face of the battle, leading the non-profit fight against the HHS mandate in the Supreme Court case Zubik v. Burwell.

While the Supreme Court didn’t explicitly rule in the nuns’ favor, it also declined to rule against them, instead sending the case back to lower courts to be worked out between the opposing parties.

Election 2016

Religious liberty became a hot issue for both sides during the election season. President-elect Donald Trump frequently advocated the repeal of the Johnson Amendment of 1954 that prevents pastors from endorsing political candidates.

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton repeatedly criticized Trump for his 2015 statement proposing a ban on all Muslim immigrants, which at the time also drew heavy criticism from Republicans, including now-Vice President-elect Mike Pence.

Trump’s team has since clarified his official position and denied that Trump would support an immigration ban based solely on someone’s religious beliefs; rather advocating for “extreme vetting” and a potential ban on immigration from certain countries where terrorist activity is high.

The Republican and Democratic platforms differed starkly when it came to religious liberty, as Stream contributor Maggie Gallagher reported in August, writing that “the Republican platform promises a strong, deep, philosophically grounded promise to protect and defend religious liberty.”

“This is about as strong (on religious liberty) as the Democrats promise to be,” Gallagher wrote of the Democratic platform, quoting from it: “We support a progressive vision of religious freedom that respects pluralism and rejects the misuse of religion to discriminate.”

Stream contributor and professor George Yancey suggested in November after the election that Progressives’ hostility to the religious liberty of Christians is one reason so many conservatives voted for Trump, despite other misgivings about his candidacy.

Michael Wear, a Christian and former Obama White House staffer, suggested something similar in an interview with The Atlantic published Thursday entitled “Democrats Have a Religion Problem.” Wear said of Democrats, “It doesn’t help you win elections if you’re openly disdainful toward the driving force in many Americans’ lives.”

The election results leave Shackelford optimistic about the future of religious freedom. “I see huge windows of opportunity to advance religious freedom under the new administration,” he said. “There should be a big change in the hundreds of judges appointed being more favorable to religious freedom and the Constitution.” (For more from the author of “Looking Back: A Snapshot of Religious Liberty in 2016” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.