Obama Readies One Last Push for Trans-Pacific Partnership

His successor, whether Democrat or Republican, opposes it, as does most of his party. Delegates at the Democratic National Convention waved signs saying “T.P.P.” slashed by a bold line, while the Republican Party platform opposed any vote on it in Congress this year.

Yet President Obama is readying one final push for approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the largest regional trade agreement ever, between the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations. And though the odds may be long, a presidency defined by partisan stalemate may yet secure one last legacy — only because of Mr. Obama’s delicate alliance with the Republicans who control Congress.

“Both parties have candidates who have very strong rhetoric against trade,” said Representative Kevin Brady, Republican of Texas and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which is responsible for trade. “Nonetheless, we can’t grow America’s economy unless we’re not merely buying American but selling American all throughout the globe.” (Read more from “Obama Readies One Last Push for Trans-Pacific Partnership” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Conservative Media Needs to Do Its Job and Start Telling People the Truth

During the 2014 general election, I sat aside my differences with the Republican Party’s more moderate and/or establishment wings, and did what I could to encourage people to vote GOP since control of the U.S. Senate was at stake.

Let’s just say the ROI for that resounding election victory has been underwhelming.

Republicans have rubber-stamped all of Obama’s administrative and lower court judicial appointments. They funded all of Obama’s schemes, and aside from show votes used none of their constitutional power of the purse to stop either Obama’s illegal amnesty or Obamacare. Instead, the GOP opted to file meaningless lawsuits and force taxpayers foot the legal bills for on both sides. Other than filling the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court created by Antonin Scalia’s untimely death, it’s tough to pinpoint exactly how things would be substantively different if Nancy Pelosi were speaker and Harry Reid the majority Lleader.

In short, Republicans made campaign promises their post-election courage couldn’t cash. And unless politics is nothing more to you than a my team versus your team type of sporting event, those of us who encouraged our audiences to rally behind them at the time did nothing but create unmet expectations.

I fear the same thing is happening in the 2016 election.

We’re beyond debating the merits, or lack thereof, of Donald Trump as the GOP nominee now. That die is cast, and that ship has long since sailed. People’s minds are likely all made up on both sides, and it’s time to just let the voters decide for themselves come November 8th.

This is really about the credibility of our movement, as well as the industry known as “conservative media.” For facts are coming to light, which at the very least cast serious doubt on the truthfulness of some of the fundamental claims/promises Trump made to our people that caused a chunk of them to flock to his candidacy.

These include:

Trump promised a self-funding campaign

A recent investigation into Trump’s holdings shows he may be upwards of $650 million in debt, which is more than twice what was previously speculated. If true, this would show his liquidity lacks the wherewithal to compete against Hillary Clinton. It would also explain why until his recent modest ad-buy, Clinton had outspent Trump $52 million to nothing in campaign advertising through August 9th. A year ago at the Iowa State Fair, Trump pledged to spend a billion dollars of his own money to win the presidency. Fast forward twelve months and Trump has spent only about $50 million of his fortune. A sizable sum, yes, but a meager pittance compared to the at least $992 million Romney and his allies spent to lose in 2012. In fact, what Trump has spent so far is only about 5% of that. Just take a look at Trump’s most recent FEC campaign disclosure for July, where the devil is most assuredly in the details:

Trump campaign spent $18 million, twice what it spent in June, but didn’t run/purchase any ads during the month.

Hillary has almost $20 million more cash on hand than the “self-funding billionaire.”

Trump campaign raised $36 million in July, which is about one-third the total Mitt Romney raised in July of 2012.

Over $8 million of the $18 million the Trump campaign spent in July went to a Texas web design firm for online fundraising. When the largest expenditure for a campaign with little to no ground game is further developing its fundraising platform, that’s never a good sign.

Trump campaign only spent about $26k more on staff than it did hats in July. No, seriously.

Trump campaign spent almost a half million dollars on hats. Hats. That’s right, I said hats. In only one month.

Trump campaign paid $660,000 for outside legal counsel. By comparison, Hillary’s campaign spent only about one-sixth of that on legal counsel in July.

Former Iowa U.S. Senate candidate Sam Clovis made $15,000 last month for reasons only Allah knows.

Trump campaign spent $2.5 million on private air travel, which is almost six times more than what it spent on staff/organization/ground game in July.

Trump promised to oppose ‘globalism’

Trump has frequently attacked Hillary Clinton for her high, six-figure speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, a multi-national banking company. During the GOP primary, he also attacked rival Ted Cruz as a ‘globalist’ because his wife, Heidi, previously worked at Goldman Sachs as well. However, Trump recently hired former Goldman Sachs banker Steve Bannon as his latest campaign manager. Furthermore, Trump has let it be known that if elected president he plans to nominate another former Goldman Sachs banker, Steve Mnuchin, for U.S. Treasury Secretary.

Trump promised to fight amnesty

Perhaps the only conservative issue upon which rump has built any semblance of credibility is illegal immigration. But now that too appears to be changing. Univision is reporting Trump will soon unveil his own amnesty proposal, a report the Trump campaign disputes. On Sunday, however, Trump’s latest campaign strategist, Kellyanne Conway, said on national television the “deportation force” Trump has long been advocating is “to be determined” and may be scrapped altogether. Conway, a well-known and well-respected GOP pollster/strategist, was paid to help Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg lobby for amnesty in 2014.

Trump promised to expand the election map

What would we say if trailing consistently in polls, Hillary Clinton decided to hold rallies in unlosable blue states like California and Massachusetts with less than 80 days to go before the election? Because that’s essentially what Trump is doing by campaigning in Texas and Mississippi this week. Trump lacks organization in Hamilton County, which may be the most pivotal county in must-win Ohio. Last week, Trump opened a second field office in must-win Florida, where Hillary Clinton already had 14 field offices. Trump’s organization lags behind Hillary’s in Virginia, which no Republican has won the presidency without since before Reconstruction. Earlier this summer GOP leaders in Pennsylvania, which is crucial to any hopes Trump has of winning the White House, said there was “almost no sign” of a Trump organization there.

Again, this isn’t about our varied opinions on the merits of Trump’s candidacy. This is about yet another Republican politician over-promising the conservative base and then under-delivering. As conservative media, I would argue we have an obligation to our fellow conservatives to alert them to what is happening here, even if we’re staunchly pro-Trump. Because if this isn’t malfeasance it’s incompetence, and it will do more to help get Hillary elected than anything #NeverTrump is capable of if the Trump campaign doesn’t right the ship.

I think we’ve already proven becoming water carriers and shills for the Republican Party doesn’t serve the conservative cause. So let’s see if telling the truth works. Who knows? It might actually prompt the Trump campaign to get its act together. (For more from the author of “Conservative Media Needs to Do Its Job and Start Telling People the Truth” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LEFT-WING NEWS SITE: New Emails Reveal “Influence Peddling on an Industrial Scale at the Clinton State Department”

The real House Oversight Committee isn’t the bunch of feckless Republican boobs in Congress, it’s the independent watchdog group Judicial Watch.

Chris White, writing at Mediaite’s sister site LawNewz, can’t stand the stink of any corruption any longer.

JW released more than 700 previously undisclosed emails that Hillary Clinton had attempted to hide from public scrutiny. The reasons are obvious:

The new materials include previously unreleased work-related emails Hillary Clinton failed to turn over to the State Department. Additionally, the materials also include never before released emails that appear to show top Clinton aide Huma Abedin giving special treatment and access to top Clinton Foundation donors at the behest of Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band…

… in one email exchange, Band emails Abedin, trying to arrange a meeting between Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain and Clinton.

“Cp of Bahrain in tomorrow to Friday, Asking to see [Clinton],” Band wrote to Abedin. He then added, “Good friend of ours,” as if to remind Abedin he was an important Clinton Foundation donor… According to the Clinton Foundation website, the Crown Price established a scholarship fund for the Clinton Global Initiative that had contributed $32 million by 2010.

Abedin replied, telling Band she had failed to set up the meeting through normal State. Dept. channels… Band then apparently jumped into action and intervened, because less that 48-hours later, Abedin was writing Band another email, this time tell him Clinton has ten minutes to meet with the Crown Prince…

…[This is one of] dozens of other examples of what looks like influence peddling on an industrial scale at the Clinton State Department. Sidney Blumenthal even makes an appearance in some of the new Clinton work-related emails, offering his inside advice on the 2009 uprisings in Iran. At one point, he suggests Clinton get the Russians involved by offering to remove a U.S. missile defense system set up in Eastern Europe. All of this is damning evidence that flies in the face of the continued Clinton campaign and State Department denials that Clinton or her aides provided certain donors with special access and treatment.

Great choice, Democrats!

You’ve nominated the most corrupt “public servant” since Boss Tweed. (For more from the author of “LEFT-WING NEWS SITE: New Emails Reveal “Influence Peddling on an Industrial Scale at the Clinton State Department” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Find out How Many Jobs Your State Could Lose With a $15 Minimum Wage

Following legislation in New York and California raising their statewide minimum wages to $15 an hour, a new study has found that such statewide mandates would lead to hundreds of thousands of job losses.

According to a new study from The Heritage Foundation, proposals at the state and federal levels to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour would lead to job losses in nearly all states and the District of Columbia.

Conducted by James Sherk, a research fellow in labor economics, the study found that state minimum wage hikes would lead to the loss of 9 million jobs across the country.

States like Texas, California, and Florida would see the highest number of job losses in 2021, with Texas and California losing more than 900,000 jobs, and Florida losing more than 700,000.

In California, 34 percent of wage and salaried workers would be impacted, compared to 38 percent and 40 percent of wage and salaried workers in Texas and Florida, respectively.

Additionally, though states like West Virginia and South Dakota would lose 52,000 jobs (West Virginia) and 22,000 jobs (South Dakota), more than 37 percent of those states’ wage and salaried workers would be impacted.

Other states, like New York and North Carolina, could see job losses topping 434,000 and 367,000, respectively.

A federal minimum wage hike to $15 an hour would lead to fewer job losses nationwide—approximately 7 million.

Sherk said this difference can be attributed to the statewide minimum wage proposals that have already been signed into law. States like California and New York, for example, would see fewer job losses since those states are phasing in state minimum wage hikes through 2022. By 2021, California’s minimum wage will be $14 an hour, according to state law, which means the state would lose 134,000 jobs that year.

Additionally, Sherk said federal minimum wage proposals typically exempt those in the agricultural sector, while state laws do not.

A $15 an hour federal minimum wage would hit Texas the hardest, with the state projected to lose more than 900,000 jobs in 2021. Florida, meanwhile, would lose 594,000 jobs, according to Sherk’s analysis.

“In general, it’s bad for places like Texas that are low cost of living states,” Vance Ginn, an economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “Employers are going to want to let go those who are the least skilled and the least educated, which ends up hurting the people we are trying to help along the way instead of letting the market forces work.”

Both Sherk and Ginn agreed that a $15 an hour minimum wage would impact states with lower costs of living—like Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina—more than those that are more expensive to live in.

“In states with lower living costs and lower wages, you’re going to see a strong effect,” Sherk told The Daily Signal.

Sherk said that a worker would have to produce approximately $18.60 an hour in value or the company loses money in hiring them.

“Forcing businesses to pay starting wages at $15 an hour makes less-skilled workers and less-experienced workers unemployable. The worker has to be able to produce at least as much in value through their labor as they’re getting paid in wages as well as the employer share of payroll taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, and the Obamacare mandate,” he said.

“A $15 an hour starting wage mandate means those workers are unemployable,” Sherk continued. “Businesses would lose money hiring them and they’re not going to do that.”

Over the last few years, labor unions have been pushing to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Since then, groups like Fight for $15, made up largely of fast-food workers, have staged strikes in cities nationwide to protest for wage hikes.

The group argues that while their employers are “multi-billion corporations,” they are forced to live in poverty.

Earlier this year, Democratic Govs. Jerry Brown of California and Andrew Cuomo of New York signed bills in their respective states raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour over the next few years.

California’s wage hike will be phased in over a five-year period, bringing the state minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022. New York’s $15 an hour minimum wage will go into effect in New York City first by 2019, and will take hold statewide by 2021.

“This is about creating a little tiny bit of balance in a system that every day becomes more unbalanced,” Brown said at the bill’s signing.

Already, states and cities with a $15 an hour minimum wage are beginning to see the impact of the higher minimum wage.

American Apparel, for example, said in April it is going to begin outsourcing some of its manufacturing, taking with it 500 Los Angeles jobs, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Additionally, small business owners in San Diego told The Daily Signal earlier this year they would have to either raise prices or close their doors to compensate for the increased labor costs a $15 an hour minimum wage would bring.

And some fast-food restaurants like McDonald’s and Panera Bread have begun installing self-service kiosks.

(For more from the author of “Find out How Many Jobs Your State Could Lose With a $15 Minimum Wage” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

REVEALED: Soros Money Led Directly to Passage of Senate “Gang of Eight” Amnesty Bill

Left-wing billionaire George Soros’ non-profit network, the Open Society Foundations (OSF), is confident about the future success of its work in the field of immigration activism and may embark on a massive campaign on immigration issues in the near future.

That’s according to a candid 62-page document reviewing OSF’s work on immigration reform discussed in May at the group’s board meeting in Montgomery, Ala.

The document, which is one of 2,500 stolen from OSF in a massive hack and released over the weekend, shows that the Soros group believes that its $7.7 million investment in groups pushing for immigration reform was responsible for the passage of the Senate’s 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill.

The bill, which was introduced by a bi-partistan group of senators known as the “Gang of Eight,” passed the upper chamber 68-32.

Though the measure was quashed by House Republicans, Soros’ group believes that pro-immigration groups were made stronger because of the investment in activists, alliances, infrastructure and media outreach, the document shows. (Read more from “REVEALED: Soros Money Led Directly to Passage of Senate “Gang of Eight” Amnesty Bill” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Clinton Outspends Trump in White House Showdown

Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump each raced to their strongest fundraising month of the campaign in July, but Clinton and her allies continue to outmuscle her GOP rival in the air and ground war for the presidency, according to new details of the candidates’ spending.

Clinton pulled in more than $52 million directly into her campaign last month and spent more than $38 million, according to her campaign’s filings Saturday with federal election regulators.

Trump raised nearly $36.7 million for his campaign and spent at a far slower pace than Clinton, reporting nearly $18.5 million in expenses in July as Clinton and her allies savaged him on the airwaves.

Trump, who has shunned much of the traditions of presidential campaigns, grew his staff modestly last month, employing 82 people, a USA TODAY review shows. Clinton, by contrast, employed 703 aides in July as she readied for her confrontation with Trump in key battlegrounds such as Ohio and Florida.

New campaign reports filed Saturday with the Federal Election Commission show Clinton with another advantage: Super-wealthy Democrats are giving early and often to boost the former secretary of State’s presidential bid and to aid Democrats hoping to seize seats in Congress. Billionaires, such as California environmentalist Tom Steyer and financier George Soros, plowed millions into Democratic-aligned super PACs last month. (Read more from “Hillary Clinton Outspends Trump in White House Showdown” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Trump Campaign Manager: ‘To Be Determined’ on Whether Trump Will Relax Immigration Deportation Policy

Donald Trump’s new campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union that it is “to be determined” whether Trump’s official immigration policy will include a deportation force.

After rumors began floating around yesterday that Trump was relaxing his position on illegal immigrants, host Dana Bash asked Conway for comment.

“What he supports,” Conway said, “is to make sure that we enforce the law, that we are respectful of those Americans who are looking for well-paying jobs, and that we are fair and humane for those who live among us in this country. And as the weeks unfold, he will lay out the specifics of that plan that he would implement as President of the United States.”

Pressing for further specifics, Bash then asked if Trump still plans to create a deportation force, to which Conway replied, “To be determined.”

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a leading immigration hardliner and prominent Trump backer,was also asked about the GOP presidential nominee’s immigration policy during a Sunday morning appearance on Fox & Friends. Host Tucker Carlson asked the senator if Trump had changed his position, which Sessions denied.

Carlson then asked Sessions if Trump still supports the so-called “touchback idea,” which would require illegal immigrants to be deported and then apply to reenter the states in a legal way.

“Well, I don’t know that he’s formally said that,” Sessions replied, “He’s discussed that, other people have discussed that. … I’m not sure that’s the best solution to the problem, but its one solution.” Sessions, chairs the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Refugees, then recommended that we first “end the lawlessness. … Then you can begin to talk, more appropriately, about what to do with people who have been here a long time.”

Sunday’s comments come after some serious campaign shakeups, as well as a week in which the Republican Presidential nominee seemingly sought to soften his image — including a visit by Trump to flood-ravaged Louisiana.

If Trump has changed his deportation policy, it wouldn’t be the first time he has done so on immigration, an issue that helped skyrocket his campaign to the front of a crowded Republican primary field. After June’s mass shooting in Orlando by a suspected ISIS sympathizer, he walked back his call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, saying he wanted policies to focus on nations with greater infiltration by terrorist elements. (For more from the author of “New Trump Campaign Manager: ‘To Be Determined’ on Whether Trump Will Relax Immigration Deportation Policy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Easy Answer to Why Obama Hasn’t Been to Louisiana or Milwaukee

It would be easy to spend an entire day comparing the media coverage of President Obama’s lack of interest in Louisiana during a natural disaster with their coverage of President Bush and the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Rob Eno reminded everybody of Bush’s response: He was there right away to survey the damage, and coordinate responses between state and local authorities. President Obama, on the other hand, has hardly put down his golf clubs while vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard last week.

And why should he, right? He’s not running for re-election so his attitude is, “Who cares?”

It may sound harsh, but what other reason could there be? The president has issued nary a statement on the events surrounding Louisiana, other than having the Justice Department release 16 pages of guidelines warning recipients of federal disaster assistance to not engage in discrimination.

The Red Cross says the flooding in Louisiana is the worst natural disaster in the U.S. since Hurricane Sandy. Ironically, President Obama’s reaction to that disaster, which happened during a tough re-election campaign in 2012, was far different.

The president made his first statement about Hurricane Sandy on October 29, the same day it first hit New Jersey. Two days later, President Obama landed in Atlantic City Airport and hopped on a helicopter with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to survey the damage. Gov. Christie still hasn’t been able to escape the infamous Christie/Obama hug that showed a solemn Obama looking … presidential.

It allowed for a narrative to be crafted. While there was a mutual unwritten agreement between President Obama and Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, to stop campaigning, Obama’s “presidential” tour of the storm-ravaged areas of New Jersey was his opportunity to campaign without actually campaigning. (For the record, Obama didn’t visit New York, which also suffered massive damage, until after the election.)

Hurricane Sandy was Obama’s “October surprise.” It allowed him to project a measure of leadership and calm that a president needs during a time of crisis. It is debatable as to whether or not it sealed the election for him as some have argued, but it certainly helped.

Yet four years later, there is a crisis in Louisiana, and Obama is nowhere to be found. The president has finally scheduled a visit to the state this Tuesday. After his vacation ends. What a sport. Regardless of what a president can or cannot do personally is irrelevant to the fact that people are encouraged when they believe their political leaders are looking out for them. In such times, party affiliation does not matter. Yet President Obama is more concerned with golfing, shopping, and going to the beach than cutting his trip short to visit a bunch of yokels in the red state of Louisiana.

It’s been a similar situation in Milwaukee. Obama relishes getting in front of the camera to wax poetic about “disparities” related to crime and interactions with police when there’s some political gain to be had or when he can inflame tensions between Americans even more than they already are. The police shooting in in Milwaukee sparked two days of violent riots, but the president didn’t say a word. Why? Three reasons:

1. The victim, Sylville Smith, was armed with a stolen gun. He has a misdemeanor conviction for carrying a concealed weapon.

2. According to “witnesses,” Smith was shot in the back. The medical examiner, however, says Smith was shot in the arm and chest.

3. The officer who shot Smith, Dominique Heaggan, is also black and was wearing a body camera.

There simply is no political hay to be made from this shooting. That has undoubtedly contributed to President Obama’s silence on the matter.

Political opportunism and narcissism are hallmark traits of President Obama’s tenure. Now that he is five months away from leaving office, it’s safe to say his “leadership” will be non-existent unless it helps to serve him in some manner. (For more from the author of “The Easy Answer to Why Obama Hasn’t Been to Louisiana or Milwaukee” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A Rare Moment of Hope in the Midst of a Depressing Election

Recently I was invited to participate in the RedState Gathering in Denver, Colorado. During the conference I heard Glenn Beck give a fantastic speech about where we are as a movement and as a culture. One thing he said convicted me to the point I’ve thought about it a lot since.

Beck’s speech was about the need to return to being a people of truth, and a movement of truth. That truth is the greatest casualty of our culture’s decline. And he was right. For example, he talked about those claiming to be in our movement who opted to expose themselves as liars and charlatans during this depressing election cycle. That we shouldn’t forget these people, and remember them going forward. And he was right about that, too.

However, Beck also drew an important distinction between those cretins and those who just philosophically, ideologically, and morally disagree with another about what to do now that Donald Trump is officially the GOP nominee. Beck asked a poignant question: are we leaving space for folks to come together again when this is all over?

Now, light cannot mix with dark anymore than truth can mingle with lies, but just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re a miscreant.

Consider Luther, Calvin, and Wesley as three of the greatest Protestant thinkers ever, but they vehemently disagreed with one another in certain doctrinal areas. So are they all heretics at the same time because they couldn’t agree on everything? Furthermore, two of the greatest thinkers in the history of Christendom were Augustine and Aquinas, who each lived prior to the Reformation and are therefore hallmarks of Catholic tradition. Are they heretics, too, because they served the church of St. Peter and not Protestant denominations that wouldn’t be conceived for centuries?

This is the danger of tribalism. It creates a myopia rather than sustaining a movement. We look for people who don’t just share our convictions on non-negotiables, but those who affirm all of our secondary passions and preferences to boot. If you’re looking for a way to shrink your membership, not to mention diminish your effectiveness, that’ll do it right as rain. Works every time.

I realized after Beck’s speech that I was in danger of falling into a similar trap regarding this election, if I had not already. That if I’m rightly concerned about allegiance to Trump’s candidacy causing conservatism to be dumbed down, I need to be equally concerned that not signing up to carry Trump’s considerable baggage doesn’t do the same.

That Trump isn’t the Mendoza Line for conservatism either way. There are people of good conscience on either side of that line. And that if conservatism is truly about conserving the values and virtues that history proves are best for the human condition, then those values were here long before Trump’s divisive candidacy emerged, and will still be here long after it is over.

So what might that look like?

I got a glimpse of what that might look like this week when I was invited to present my “10 Commandments of Political Warfare,” from 2014 book Rules for Patriots: How Conservatives Can Win Again, to a group of activists/party officials in Kansas City. This was a decidedly pro-Trump audience. I am decidedly not.

Yet by focusing on the principles that unite us in the first place, rather than the personalities who don’t, this ended up being one of the more enjoyable talks I’ve done in a while. Even during the Q-and-A portion when Trump came up, the audience was more interested in how my “10 Commandments of Political Warfare” might help Trump than arguing with me over him.

Afterwards, one of them came up to me after seeing Trump’s endorsement in the book, and asked me, “Why the hell isn’t he doing this stuff?”

Some of the fissures exposed during this depressing election will be permanent. That is unavoidable, when people you used to trust reveal themselves to be untrustworthy in broad daylight making it impossible to ignore. Thus, yes, there is a schism taking place. But while that is necessary, it need not be catastrophic. There’s pruning, and then there’s purging. One is painful but necessary discernment. The other throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

I think we can all agree we’ve had enough of angry mobs losing all perspective, and making decisions based on what they’re against and not what they’re for.

I close by now asking you, the reader, the same question Beck asked all of us in Denver a week ago: regardless of which side you’re on, are you leaving space for folks to come together again when this is over? When it comes to Trump, are you leaving space for folks to come together again when this is over? (For more from the author of “A Rare Moment of Hope in the Midst of a Depressing Election” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Almost Everything the Media Tells You About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Is Wrong

A major new report, published today in the journal The New Atlantis, challenges the leading narratives that the media has pushed regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.

Co-authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender.

The major takeaway, as the editor of the journal explains, is that “some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.”

Here are four of the report’s most important conclusions:

The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property—that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex—so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.

Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.

The report, “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” is co-authored by Dr. Lawrence Mayer and Dr. Paul McHugh. Mayer is a scholar-in-residence in the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University.

McHugh, whom the editor of The New Atlantis describes as “arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century,” is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and was for 25 years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. It was during his tenure as psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins that he put an end to sex reassignment surgery there, after a study launched at Hopkins revealed that it didn’t have the benefits for which doctors and patients had long hoped.

Implications for Policy

The report focuses exclusively on what scientific research shows and does not show. But this science can have implications for public policy.

The report reviews rigorous research showing that ‘only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.’

Take, for example, our nation’s recent debates over transgender policies in schools. One of the consistent themes of the report is that science does not support the claim that “gender identity” is a fixed property independent of biological sex, but rather that a combination of biological, environmental, and experiential factors likely shape how individuals experience and express themselves when it comes to sex and gender.

The report also discusses the reality of neuroplasticity: that all of our brains can and do change throughout our lives (especially, but not only, in childhood) in response to our behavior and experiences. These changes in the brain can, in turn, influence future behavior.

This provides more reason for concern over the Obama administration’s recent transgender school policies. Beyond the privacy and safety concerns, there is thus also the potential that such policies will result in prolonged identification as transgender for students who otherwise would have naturally grown out of it.

The report reviews rigorous research showing that “only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.” Policymakers should be concerned with how misguided school policies might encourage students to identify as girls when they are boys, and vice versa, and might result in prolonged difficulties. As the report notes, “There is no evidence that all children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior should be encouraged to become transgender.”

Beyond school policies, the report raises concerns about proposed medical intervention in children. Mayer and McHugh write: “We are disturbed and alarmed by the severity and irreversibility of some interventions being publicly discussed and employed for children.”

They continue: “We are concerned by the increasing tendency toward encouraging children with gender identity issues to transition to their preferred gender through medical and then surgical procedures.” But as they note, “There is little scientific evidence for the therapeutic value of interventions that delay puberty or modify the secondary sex characteristics of adolescents.”

Findings on Transgender Issues

The same goes for social or surgical gender transitions in general. Mayer and McHugh note that the “scientific evidence summarized suggests we take a skeptical view toward the claim that sex reassignment procedures provide the hoped for benefits or resolve the underlying issues that contribute to elevated mental health risks among the transgender population.” Even after sex reassignment surgery, patients with gender dysphoria still experience poor outcomes:

Compared to the general population, adults who have undergone sex reassignment surgery continue to have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes. One study found that, compared to controls, sex-reassigned individuals were about five times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.

Mayer and McHugh urge researchers and physicians to work to better “understand whatever factors may contribute to the high rates of suicide and other psychological and behavioral health problems among the transgender population, and to think more clearly about the treatment options that are available.” They continue:

In reviewing the scientific literature, we find that almost nothing is well understood when we seek biological explanations for what causes some individuals to state that their gender does not match their biological sex. … Better research is needed, both to identify ways by which we can help to lower the rates of poor mental health outcomes and to make possible more informed discussion about some of the nuances present in this field.

Policymakers should take these findings very seriously. For example, the Obama administration recently finalized a new Department of Health and Human Services mandate that requires all health insurance plans under Obamacare to cover sex reassignment treatments and all relevant physicians to perform them. The regulations will force many physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers to participate in sex reassignment surgeries and treatments, even if doing so violates their moral and religious beliefs or their best medical judgment.

Rather than respect the diversity of opinions on sensitive and controversial health care issues, the regulations endorse and enforce one highly contested and scientifically unsupported view. As Mayer and McHugh urge, more research is needed, and physicians need to be free to practice the best medicine.

Stigma, Prejudice Don’t Explain Tragic Outcomes

The report also highlights that people who identify as LGBT face higher risks of adverse physical and mental health outcomes, such as “depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and most alarmingly, suicide.” The report summarizes some of those findings:

Members of the non-heterosexual population are estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety disorders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression, 1.5 times the risk of substance abuse, and nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide.

Members of the transgender population are also at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population. Especially alarmingly, the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41 percent, compared to under 5 percent in the overall U.S. population.

What accounts for these tragic outcomes? Mayer and McHugh investigate the leading theory—the “social stress model”—which proposes that “stressors like stigma and prejudice account for much of the additional suffering observed in these subpopulations.”

But they argue that the evidence suggests that this theory “does not seem to offer a complete explanation for the disparities in the outcomes.” It appears that social stigma and stress alone cannot account for the poor physical and mental health outcomes that LGBT-identified people face.

As a result, they conclude that “More research is needed to uncover the causes of the increased rates of mental health problems in the LGBT subpopulations.” And they call on all of us work to “alleviate suffering and promote human health and flourishing.”

Finally, the report notes that scientific evidence does not support the claim that people are “born that way” with respect to sexual orientation. The narrative pushed by Lady Gaga and others is not supported by the science. A combination of biological, environmental, and experiential factors likely account for an individual’s sexual attractions, desires, and identity, and “there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation.”

Furthermore, the scientific research shows that sexual orientation is more fluid than the media suggests. The report notes that “Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80 percent of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults.”

Findings Contradict Claims in Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling

These findings—that scientific research does not support the claim that sexual orientation is innate and immutable—directly contradict claims made by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in last year’s Obergefell ruling. Kennedy wrote, “their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment” and “in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.”

But the science does not show this.

While the marriage debate was about the nature of what marriage is, incorrect scientific claims about sexual orientation were consistently used in the campaign to redefine marriage.

In the end, Mayer and McHugh observe that much about sexuality and gender remains unknown. They call for honest, rigorous, and dispassionate research to help better inform public discourse and, more importantly, sound medical practice.

As this research continues, it’s important that public policy not declare scientific debates over, or rush to legally enforce and impose contested scientific theories. As Mayer and McHugh note, “Everyone—scientists and physicians, parents and teachers, lawmakers and activists—deserves access to accurate information about sexual orientation and gender identity.”

We all must work to foster a culture where such information can be rigorously pursued and everyone—whatever their convictions, and whatever their personal situation—is treated with the civility, respect, and generosity that each of us deserves. (For more from the author of “Almost Everything the Media Tells You About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Is Wrong” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.