Fake News Is Not New

Is anyone besides me tired of hearing about “fake news”? You would think it was a new discovery on the level with fire. It isn’t It’s been going on for a long time.

The serpent wove a pretty fantastic story in the Garden of Eden. After all, fake news is simply a false narrative constructed to incite people to follow a specific agenda. The recent political campaign had more than its share of such. The current headlines do too.

The media has been exposed as less objective than we thought or hoped. Who could believe the accounts presented about Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton or President Obama? If the story fit your bias, it was tempting to certify it as true, and even pass it on as legitimate news.

Competing Narratives

During my early high school days, before I had a driver’s license, I had to catch a ride for the ten miles home after football practice. My uncle who lived just a mile away was a good prospect. He was the clerk of the district court and left for home at 5:00 p.m. most days. Sometimes when court was in session, he would be forced to stay later, and I would sit in the courtroom and watch the proceedings.

I was always amazed at how an attorney could take the presented evidence and create a narrative to account for it in such a way to benefit his desired conclusion. The jury had to decide between competing narratives. This has been going on a long time.

Back to the Garden. The serpent reinterpreted the circumstances and wove a story about how much better it would be if the original pair would distrust God and believe his version of reality instead. Later in history, Jesus said that the devil was a liar from the beginning, and “the father of lies.” All alternative narratives come from him, through the minds and mouths of those who, like the serpent, reject God’s word as final truth.

Sadly, many don’t even admit that such a dynamic is going on. They ignore the reality of spiritual deception and walk headlong into issues they have no ability to discern.

On Christmas night, the shepherds heard real news and it was good. A new day had come! A new King had arrived. Blessings would come from His reign. Sin would be forever defeated. Life as designed would be possible for those who submitted to Him. They would be given His name as authority and His Spirit as power to live.

Fake News, Real News

You might have heard some fake news. For instance, the accuser, Satan, likes to broadcast that God is angry with you and that you should probably avoid Him. After all, look at the circumstances around you. Why are you having all these problems? Surely this is incontrovertible evidence that God doesn’t want to bless you.

The good news that Jesus brings is that He took upon Himself the wrath of God for your sins. If you trust in Him, you are now viewed by God as righteous as Jesus. You are blessed in Christ. Your circumstances are opportunities to discover His grace and sufficiency.

Or, you might have heard that evil is so pervasive that it will ultimately win. Again, if you look at the circumstances, with all the bad things going on, it’s easy to wonder, if God is ruling, why so much evil?

But try looking at the good things going on. God is using His people to address issues of injustice and hostility, and will ultimately vindicate His own. Give thanks for the blessings and your eyes will open to more.

Finally, you might have heard that life is just unfair and random and you are one of the victims. Look at how the wicked are blessed and the righteous are ignored.

Far from being a victim, you are God’s delegated representative on earth. As one who trusts in Him, you carry His approval and His name. He is using you to address the issues that you see with the truth of the good news that is real.

There is real news and it is good. You can trust it if it aligns with the word of God. He can be trusted and so can His word. When you know the truth you can be free. (For more from the author of “Fake News Is Not New” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Rick Perry Can Free up US Energy from Government Favoritism

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently had his confirmation hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

If confirmed, Perry should work with Congress to reduce the size and scope of the agency’s intrusive reach into energy markets. Here are three priorities:

1. Stop and eliminate taxpayer-backed loans and loan guarantees.

On his way out the door, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz has announced a conditional loan guarantee for a fossil fuel project—a blatant, taxpayer-backed subsidy of up to $2 billion for Lake Charles Methanol, LLC. Such federal government meddling in the energy sector is the exact wrong approach to America’s energy policy.

The Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program provides taxpayer-backed loans to politically favored clean technologies that are “typically unable to obtain conventional private financing due to high technology risks.” Lake Charles Methanol, for example, is building the world’s first methanol plant using carbon capture technology for enhanced oil recovery.

Too much risk is often a reason why projects do not receive financial backing. Or, companies may have better options for their investment dollars. Regardless of why projects fail to secure private investment funds, it’s not a legitimate function of government to fill the void by financing projects on the backs of taxpayers.

The Department of Energy’s loan programs are a double-edged sword for the American economy. Either the government subsidizes likely-to-fail projects, thus throwing away taxpayer dollars, or it provides corporate welfare, keeping politically favored activities alive while diminishing the innovative role of the entrepreneur and private investment.

It’s a lose-lose proposition.

2. Eliminate spending on applied research and technology commercialization.

The Department of Energy spends billions of dollars annually to drive specific energy technologies to the market. As with the loan guarantee programs, commercially viable energy sources do not need support from the taxpayer.

Eliminating such wasteful spending will remove government intervention that diverts capital from the private sector to government-supported projects.

Instead of spending taxpayer dollars on a variety of politically preferred energy technologies and hoping for the next energy revolution to come through government planning, the federal government should recognize how successful free enterprise has been in driving energy transformations and meeting consumer demand.

In conjunction with eliminating spending on technological development in the energy sector in the presidential budget, President Donald Trump should appoint an undersecretary for the sole purpose of phasing out the applied offices within the Department of Energy.

Eliminating these offices will send a strong message that the government does not need to intervene in energy markets, whether it is for conventional fuels or renewable ones.

Proper reform will produce a more effective, flexible national laboratory system that is focused less on serving members of Congress’ pet projects and more on the country’s national priorities focused on basic research and scientific discovery and exploration.

3. Refrain from issuing new energy efficiency standards, and urge Congress to repeal the old energy conservation standards.

The secretary should order the Department of Energy not to implement or revise any new efficiency standards and recommend that Congress pass legislation eliminating all efficiency standards, leaving it to the states unless state regulations violate interstate commerce.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, authorizes the Department of Energy to develop and implement maximum energy-use standards for appliances and equipment.

The department currently regulates energy use from more than 60 appliances and products, including refrigerators, air conditioners, furnaces, televisions, showerheads, ovens, toilets, and light bulbs, and whatever the secretary determines or is petitioned to test.

Efficiency regulations are more about cronyism and controlling consumer choice than improving the environment. In fact, the department’s projected environmental benefits to Americans from reducing greenhouse gas emissions are a paltry one percent of the benefits projected from efficiency regulations.

In promulgating efficiency regulations, the Department of Energy prioritizes energy efficiency over other preferences customers have. For instance, the purchaser of a washing machine may prefer a faster cycle time than a slower one that saves water.

Moreover, the market generates efficiency without government intervention. The incentive for families and businesses to save money drives innovation to decrease prices and improve performance and efficiency.

The successful implementation of these priorities will go a long way to reforming American energy policy. Assuming Perry is confirmed by the Senate, he should make these three items the top of his agenda. (For more from the author of “How Rick Perry Can Free up US Energy from Government Favoritism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

7 Obama Executive Orders That Are Ripe for Annihilation

As Donald Trump prepares to take office Friday, thoughts of President Obama’s legacy looms. Simply put, many of the president’s signature achievements are built on a foundation of unconstitutional executive overreach. Barack Obama’s mark on U.S. history is that of an imperial president. His legacy is one of governance by fiat.

Article I of the U.S Constitution endows the Congress with the legislative power of government – the power to make laws. The presidency, as part of the executive branch, is given the Article II, Section 3 requirement of faithfully executing the laws passed by Congress.

After the Democrats lost control of the Senate in 2014, Obama declared at his first Cabinet meeting: “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation … I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.”

He assumed for himself Congress’ lawmaking power. Ignoring the people’s representatives in Congress, the president repeatedly and unconstitutionally sought to implement his far-left agenda through executive action.

His efforts bore fruit in the passage of several liberal policies. But now, with November’s election shakeup, whatever Obama accomplished through executive action can be undone by executive action.

Repealing Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders is exactly what President-elect Trump has pledged to do. Here is where he should start …

1. DACA and DAPA amnesty

The president unilaterally superseded the nation’s immigration laws by illegally granting amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants through his Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) executive orders.

This, of course, came after the president said at least 22 times that he does not have the power to make such sweeping, unilateral moves such as granting temporary legal status to illegal immigrants via executive order. The amnesty-granting move was so outrageous even the Washington Post editorial board characterized the move as “unprecedented” and wrote “Republicans’ failure to address immigration also does not justify Mr. Obama’s massive unilateral act.”

2. Obama’s Clean Power Plan executive actions

After the Obama administration failed to see cap-and-trade legislation become law in 2009, the president decided to take action himself. Through the EPA, the president instituted a series of rules that effectively instituted cap-and-trade (essentially a tax on carbon emissions). The plan is a job-killer (especially for the already-struggling coal industry) and raises costs for all U.S. households. It also illegitimately reinterprets the Clean Air Act to achieve its policy and is facing several court challenges from the states. President-elect Trump can put an end to the onerous climate regulations by instructing the EPA formally revoke the plan.

3. Forcing federal contractors to violate their religious beliefs

Executive Order 13672 required all federal contractors and subcontractors to affirmatively state that they make employment decisions without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity. There was no exemption for religious liberty, and those that refused to comply with the order were declared ineligible to contract with the federal government. What this policy did, in effect, was restrict the First Amendment liberties of federal contractors, such as military chaplains, by forcing them to use vendors who disregard the religious teachings on marriage and gender identity respective to their denominations.

In the particular case of a military chaplains, they are required to have the backing of an endorsing body. If that endorsing body – say the Catholic Church – has a doctrine that disagrees with the progressive view on sexual liberty, that body will not be permitted to contract with the government and the chaplain will lose his sponsor, rendering him unable to serve. To preserve the First Amendment freedoms of federal contractors, this executive order must be revoked.

4. The transgender bathroom order

Obama issued guidelines to public school districts in the U.S. admonishing them to let transgender students use the bathroom of their self-proclaimed identity. Though the letter does not have the force of law, Obama’s Department of Education went ahead and threatened to revoke federal funding to schools that do not permit confused boys and girls into the bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex.

The most troubling aspect of Obama’s actions is, as CR’s Nate Madden wrote, “the administration has declared itself a scientific arbiter of what constitutes the very nature on man and woman.” The government should not have such power, and President-elect Trump should instruct his nominee for secretary of education, Betsy Devos, to roll back the Department of Education’s funding threats.

5. Appeasing the world’s leading terrorism sponsor: Iran

President Obama upturned a two-decade standing policy of the United States when he revoked economic sanctions against the terrorist-sponsoring Iranian regime in early 2016. The move freed up as much as $150 billion of frozen Iranian assets under the assumption that Iran would comply with the nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration.

A year later, we know that Obama secretly gave Iran exemptions on certain provisions in the deal, and even with these exemptions Iran is violating the terms of the agreement. President-elect Trump should reimpose sanctions on Day 1.

6. Gun control

In early 2016, President Obama announced sweeping executive actions on gun control that instructed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to redefine who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. By broadening that term, the administration could classify anyone who sells a firearm as a “firearms dealer,” potentially subjecting private sellers to a slew of onerous regulations meant to apply to retail firearms dealers.

Redefining a law to apply to individuals Congress did not intend the law to apply to is an unconstitutional overreach by the executive branch. Further, placing an undue burden on gun owners potentially infringes on the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, President-elect Trump ought to put these regulations on the chopping block.

7. Gutting work requirements for welfare

In the mid 1990s, a Republican-controlled Congress led by Newt Gingrich successfully compromised with President Bill Clinton to enact welfare reform that placed a work requirement on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. These work requirements were made mandatory and nonwaivable, and the subsequent success of the welfare reform led to a drop in welfare recipients and a decrease in child poverty.

President Obama illegally claimed the authority to waive the TANF work requirements. As a result, more individuals are back on on the government dole. If President-elect Trump wishes to pursue a pro-growth policy and get people working again, he should reinstate welfare reform requirements.

These are just a few of the many executive orders issued by President Obama that are under review by the incoming Trump administration. Obama staked his legacy on the election of a Democrat to succeed him and uphold his policies.

It is now in President-elect Trump’s power to ensure the Obama legacy is enshrined in our memories, and not in our laws. (For more from the author of “7 Obama Executive Orders That Are Ripe for Annihilation on Trump’s First Day” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Betsy DeVos Battle Is Key to the Culture War

Who would have thought that one of the nastiest confirmation battles a Donald Trump appointee would have to face would be the choice for Secretary of Education? But over the last week, the attacks against philanthropist and education activist Betsy DeVos have been shrill and unremitting.

The barrage aimed at DeVos has been scattershot, as Democrats throw at her everything they can find, to see what sticks to the Senate hearing room wall. Rich Lowry has ably unpacked the most unfounded charges against DeVos, which focus on her advocacy of

charter schools;
vouchers to give parents educational choice;
due process for students accused of “date rape,” and
Christian schools and pro-family groups via private acts of philanthropy.

This last point is especially chilling. DeVos is being grilled for having given her own family money to private-run schools that share her Christian views (as opposed to tax-fattened government schools), and for donating to Focus On the Family — which opposes same-sex marriage, much as eight years ago Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton claimed to oppose it.

Should Political and Charitable Donors be “Outed” by the IRS?

Why should private donations to religious, political and charitable causes be fodder for a confirmation hearing? In a non-totalitarian country, there’s supposed to be a bright line between one’s public and private life. Constitutionally, the government may not impose a religious test on employees. But “campaign finance reform” laws championed by leftists and some addled Republicans (such as John McCain) have removed any veil of privacy from how citizens choose to spend and donate their own money.

In her eye-opening new book The Intimidation Game, Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal documented how the exposure of private donations has become a tool to silence conservative dissent. Remember how the co-founder of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, was forced out of his own company after an LGBT freakout over his one-time gift to a pro-family organization? Now we are seeing the same kind of witch hunt on the floor of the U.S. Senate. As Strassel points out, the exposure of donors to political organizations was used by segregationists in the South to intimidate and try to crush the NAACP. Now faithful Christians and conservatives are the targets of choice. (For an organization that seeks to protect political speech by restoring donor privacy, check out the Pillar of Law Institute.)

The Left Wants Your Kids

The secular left has long understood better than the church that politics lies downstream of culture. So progressives aim to grab and keep control of the levers of culture: the arts and education. (Not to go off on a tangent, but the mau-mauing of any performer willing to appear at Trump’s inauguration is part of the cultural control effort in the arts — as was the attempt to destroy Chip and Joanna Gaines.)

It is plainly true, as the late Whitney Houston noted, that “children are the future.” With that in mind, leftists have sought to impose elite control over American education for more than a hundred years. Few outside of conservative home-schooling and libertarian circles remember it, but public schools were originally a project of progressives like Horace Mann who wished to pry children away from their parents’ religious values and homogenize them as forward-thinking Americans.

On this theory, kids from conservative Protestant or immigrant Catholic families would be gently but firmly led by progressive teachers away from their ancestral “superstitions,” and molded as citizens of a secular Republic. Social Gospel advocates cooperated with outright non-believers in the effort to impose Enlightenment norms on the children of a broadly Christian country. Radical secularists in France, Mexico, and other nations with deep Christian cultures made similar efforts. It was only decades later that Antonio Gramsci put a directly Marxist spin on this effort, crafting a program for radicals to ferret their way into positions of control all through the institutions of culture.

For decades this project stalled in the United States, as local school boards kept public institutions in many places effectively Protestant and culturally conservative — while impoverished Catholics like my ancestors decamped and set up their own parallel school system, privately funded by pennies from recent immigrants, and staffed by thousands of willing, unpaid nuns and religious brothers.

Neither of these barriers survived the 1960s. Federal court decisions against school prayer, massive federal intrusion in the name of desegregation and “diversity,” the growth of politicized teachers’ unions, requirements that teachers be processed through “education” programs with mostly leftist orientations, and the growth of politicized teachers’ unions have combined to dilute the influence of school boards in all but the most conservative communities. The collapse of religious vocations has stripped Catholic schools of their once-vast labor pool, and forced such academies to survive on what tuition parents can afford — on top of the school taxes they paid. Around the country, even Catholic schools with excellent track records are closing due to costs.

Unions Want to Suppress Educational Competition

Now cash-rich teachers’ unions, which have long been linked to politically radical causes, are trying to seal the last few cracks where dissent can live. They are leading the fight to prevent the confirmation of Ms. DeVos. As the Washington Free Beacon reports:

Three of the groups challenging the reform agenda of President-elect Donald Trump and his education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos received more than $2.6 million from teachers unions and their allies, according to federal labor filings…. The National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, and AFL-CIO, which serves as an umbrella group for dozens of unions including the AFT, have all called on the Senate to reject the nomination.

They have also pumped millions of dollars into think tanks and activist groups that have supplied Democrats with intellectual ammunition to oppose her.

Beyond the desire of leftists to indoctrinate the next generation, there’s a clear financial motive here: Teachers unions know that charter schools impose stricter standards that allow them to discipline often-incompetent teachers, while vouchers let parents escape the tyranny of school districts imposed by zip code. Those who consider traditional religion dangerous in itself are troubled by the idea of letting parents whose kids use church-based schools claim back some of the taxes they pay for public schools. That undermines the whole point of public education, as they see it.

Are Vouchers Just a Leash in Big Brother’s Hand?

Ironically, religious conservatives are also raising difficult questions for DeVos. As Breitbart reports, grass-roots connected with homeschooling and religious freedom groups are concerned by DeVos’s close ties to longtime advocates of Common Core (such as, most prominently, Gov. Jeb Bush). Karen Effrem of Education Liberty Watch told Breitbart:

There is also great concern about her support of voucher programs imposing Common Core on private and potentially home schools, and extensive student data mining. These concerns are especially acute given President-elect Trump’s encouraging and repeated promises to get rid of Common Core, protect privacy and decrease or eliminate the federal role in education.

A debate has long simmered among religious conservatives over the wisdom of promoting federally-financed school voucher programs, given the track record of the federal government at imposing faith-busting mandates on religious institutions, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor. Just in 2016, the state of California came within a hairsbreadth of demanding that Christian colleges renounce their stances on marriage and sexual morality or face the loss of tens of millions in federal aid, on which such colleges have become financially dependent.

Could religious schools that accepted such aid from a President Trump find themselves over a barrel under a future Democratic president? Could home schoolers who received vouchers face a “transgender” mandate like President Obama’s, which affected local schools across America? If we have learned one thing in the past eight years, it is to put absolutely nothing past the left. If we can imagine it, soon enough progressives will try to get away with it. (For more from the author of “The Betsy DeVos Battle Is Key to the Culture War” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dear CNN, I Am Applying for Your Fake News Expert Position

Dear CNN,

I am applying for your new position for a reporter who will expose fake news. I’m definitely the person you want. Why, just last month, I wrote an article on how your own Brian Stelter is a purveyor of fake news himself.

In fact, you’ve helped make me the journalist I am. Even if you don’t hire me, I’ll always be grateful to CNN for all the practice. I’ve made a career from pointing out many fake news stories at CNN. With all the experience you’ve given me, I feel I am overqualified for this position!

Since CNN churns out so much fake news, we’d be a great fit. I have a large social media following, and already share with them all the fake news stories I find on CNN. You can’t beat that kind of publicity. You publish fake news and get all the readers, then you publish my exposure of the fake news and get all those readers and more. It’s a win-win!

I could spend all my time debunking your own fake news. I wouldn’t even need to look at other news sites. We’d keep the readers to ourselves. If you keep Stelter on, I could just focus on exposing his fake news.

This part of the job description describes me well: “They should get angry every time they see any inaccuracy in any story, whether large or small, and whether published by a fake news site or a real one.” I was snowbound in a motel a couple of weeks ago, and watched CNN (there was no Fox News) for several days in a row, and I felt myself get angrier and angrier.

You know what made me angry? Watching your incessant coverage of the unproven accusations that the Russians hacked the Democrats’ emails and gave them to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, you didn’t even mention the possibility that a disgruntled Democratic insider could have leaked the emails, which is what Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has said. If you hire me, you can bet I’ll be angry all the time! At you!

I know you’ll be impressed with my work. Here are some CNN headlines with fake news from the last couple of days with a sample of my analyses:

Trump puts GOP in awkward spot on ObamacareThis is a great example. You took simple business as usual and turned it into a problem. Trump says his plan to replace Obamacare is ready, whereas Republicans in Congress don’t have a plan ready yet. This isn’t “awkward.” It just means the two need to agree on how they want to fix healthcare. That’s how Congress and the president do things.

The article also said Sen. Orrin Hatch “bristled” at Trump’s promise to provide healthcare coverage for all. He said we need to be careful about over-promising. That sounds more “cautionary” than “bristling.”

Obama approval hits 60% as end of term approachesHere’s another good one. You say Obama is still popular. How’d you do that? You sampled a lot more Democrats than Republicans. The same with your polling about President Trump. Your recent poll on his approval rating sampled 31 percent Democrats and only 23 percent Republicans, despite the fact those percentages are not reflective of the general population.

Nancy Sinatra not happy Trump using father’s song at inauguration In response to a question about her father’s song being used at the inauguration, Nancy Sinatra jokingly tweeted back, “Just remember the first line of the song.” The first line is, “And now, the end is near.” You ran the headline above about her tweet.

Sinatra angrily tweeted in response, “That’s not true. I never said that. Why do you lie, CNN?” She went on, “What a rotten spin to put on a harmless joke,” and had only good things to say about Trump. While it is true she recently praised Meryl Streep for her criticism of Trump at the Golden Globes, she is not the angry firebrand the article portrayed her as.

Since Sinatra called you out on this fake news, you changed the title to “Sinatra on Trump picking ‘My Way’: Remember the first line” and corrected the article, adding Sinatra’s response. Unfortunately, it took a celebrity to convince you to correct your fake news.

Finally, you’re looking for someone of impeccable character. As many who know me can attest to, I’d turn in my own mother if she were guilty of fake news.

I look forward to hearing from you. We’ll make a great team, I promise!

Sincerely,

Rachel Alexander

P.S. Here’s an idea if you’re feeling really radical. Rename CNN to FNN, for Fake News Network. You’d take all the traffic away from the conspiracy sites that dominate the fake news market. Together, we can take fake news to a new level.

(For more from the author of “Dear CNN, I Am Applying for Your Fake News Expert Position” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Inauguration Protesters Dishonor Long-Held Principle

More than any other political act, the orderly transfer of power from one administration to another at a presidential inauguration demonstrates convincingly that we are a nation of laws and not of men.

Even with the closest of outcomes and the losing side’s understandable disappointment — and even anger — victor and vanquished normally pledge to work together for the common good.

Unfortunately, a coalition of left-wing radicals has now pledged to do all that it can to disrupt Donald Trump’s inauguration, including blocking streets and perhaps bridges, preventing people from assembling along the parade route, spreading false “news” about the ceremony’s participants and their remarks, and pledging a “permanent opposition” to the Trump presidency.

One newspaper referred to the left’s “post-election frenzy of fundraising, war rooms, protests and social media hysteria.”

This radical left has ignored the example set by past presidential losers such as former Vice President Al Gore and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who after suffering defeat demonstrated their respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.

In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Gore by a little more than half a million votes (out of 101.4 million cast) but won the electoral vote by the slimmest of margins — 271 to 266, one vote more than the 270 needed.

Gore could have refused to accept the Supreme Court’s decision putting a stop to ballot counting in Florida, but instead, he said that “for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.”

Gore quoted Stephen Douglas’ comments to Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency: “Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I’m with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.” With his concession remarks, Gore provided an example of high statesmanship rather than low partisanship.

A little more than two months ago, Trump lost the popular vote to Clinton by nearly 3 million votes out of 129 million cast, but won the electoral vote decisively by 306 to 232 votes.

Many Clinton supporters remain in deep denial, lending their support to the disaffected and the disgruntled who have promised to protest at the inauguration of Trump.

To her credit, Clinton has not encouraged the protests, but has rather stood by what she said at her concession speech on election night: “I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans.”

Endeavoring to put politics behind her, Clinton said that “we owe [Trump] an open mind and a chance to lead” and acknowledged the importance of “the peaceful transfer of power.”

We do not know what Trump, ever unpredictable, will say in his speech after he has taken the oath of office to become our 45th president. But we have reason to believe that his inaugural address will be, at least in part, Reaganesque — optimistic and confident.

Speaking of Ronald Reagan, I think (as I wrote in National Affairs) that 2017 resembles 1981 in several significant ways.

Republicans have accumulated a vast backlog of conservative ideas over the past eight years that were blocked by President Barack Obama and are now available to Trump.

Similarly, The Heritage Foundation’s 1980 Mandate for Leadership contained a mountain of conservative policy reforms going back decades that helped Reagan move the federal government in a conservative direction.

Even so, Heritage has now offered the Trump administration a similarly comprehensive blueprint for conservative policies in every federal department and agency.

These include repeal of Obamacare and the creation of a free-market health care program; the repeal of Dodd-Frank and the shutting down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; restoration of the work requirements for federal welfare; a flat tax rate on personal income; a commitment to traditional marriage; and the strengthening of our armed forces so that they are second to none.

The 2016 election returns have given conservatives a golden opportunity. The conservative agenda has proven solutions to many of the problems that led so many Americans — more than 61 million — to vote for the change that Trump promised.

It is now up to conservatives to convince policymakers from the White House to the statehouses to pursue the right path, to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ourselves and those we love. (For more from the author of “Trump Inauguration Protesters Dishonor Long-Held Principle” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Triumph of Obama: What Conservatives Can Learn from the Liberal Warrior

Good bye and good riddance to the most radical and destructive president of all time.

With that said, before we let the first post-American president fade from our memory altogether, let’s reflect upon his commitment, passion, and tenacity in pursuit of his anti-American ideas and try to harness that same zeal and commitment for our ideas.

It’s undeniable that Obama has accomplished for the Left more than any other president has accomplished for his respective party’s ideology. The $9.3 trillion in debt he has accrued to bankrupt this country, destroy free markets and capitalism, create crushing dependency, and permanently grow government will live on long past his tenure. The numbers are staggering:

At least 65 percent of all children now live in a home that receives some sort of assistance from the federal government.

Over 82 million Americans live in a home where there is at least one Medicaid recipient.

49.2 percent of all Americans are receiving at least one government program.

Most of all, Obama’s signature legislation—the crown jewel of socialism—has destroyed health care and health insurance in a way that no middle-income family can control their own destiny without unsustainable government subsidies. And unless things change, the core of his plan will not be repealed.

The way Obama has violated our sovereignty and encouraged so many illegal aliens to remain in the country will create a permanent grievance for amnesty. His realignment of allies to enemies and enemies to allies has remade the world.

Yet, nowhere was his transformation more evident than as it relates to the founding values of this country. Obama was right to declare yesterday at a press conference that he “could not be prouder of the transformation that’s taken place in our society just in the last decade.” The sexual identity alphabet soup has become a national religion, marriage has been redefined, sexuality has been redefined, our founding religious values have essentially been criminalized, and he has completely crushed any semblance of organized opposition to even its most radical agenda items. Republicans are now further to the left on basic family values and civilization issues than Democrats were prior to Obama.

The biggest lesson of Obama is that he was comfortable in his own skin. He wasn’t just an “anti-Republican,” although he continued to use “blame Bush” as a tactic to promote that agenda. He had his own affirmative agenda for which he was willing to spend all his political capital enacting and marshal every resource in every agency of the executive branch to promote the cross-section of fiscal, social, and foreign policy liberal ideas. He didn’t make excuses. The few places where he failed to enact a liberal agenda item wasn’t because he didn’t try. It was because the electorate categorically rejected it and took away the House from him for six of his eight years in office.

Obama never appointed a single person to any position in any agency of any department that was not a full-throttled three-legged stool progressive. His administration spoke with one voice towards one mission as it relates to the critical policy battles of our time. They never deviated from their message on a single issue.

Some might suggest that Obama was punished for his overreach and is indeed a failure because Democrats have lost an unprecedented amount of power under his stewardship, especially on a state level. In the short term, this is definitely true. Voters have emphatically rejected his radical progressive brand. However, in the long run, he has completely neutered any legitimate opposition to most of his ideas and has thus shifted the entire universe of the political landscape inexorably to the Left.

Just watch any of the confirmation hearings and you will see the nominees and the GOP senators accept every radical premise of the Obama era. They have accepted the fundamental philosophy behind Obamacare and have agreed to keep the Iran deal. They refuse to oppose one morsel of the transgender agenda, and will not lift a finger to tamp down the absurd gender-bending and social engineering in the military. None of them appear comfortable espousing conservatism openly the way Democrats loudly and proudly champion their agenda, even after losing an election. Indeed, Obama has successfully shifted the entire universe of the political landscape so far to the left that even when Republicans create the minimal 2-3 deviations of space between the parties they are still well to the left of where Democrats were in the ‘90s on critical issues.

However, all is not lost. Republicans can still render Obama’s tenure a failure (even politically) if they countermand his agenda the same way Democrats reversed the progress of the Reagan Revolution. If they would trade in their diffidence for an Obama-sized confidence and passion on the beliefs espoused in the GOP platform, they have an unprecedented opportunity to roll back previous Democrat handiwork for the first time in modern history. The two-party system doesn’t have to operate like a ratchet effect, a metaphor Margaret Thatcher often used to explain the one directional progress of liberalism when the Left is in power and the inability to reverse one iota of that momentum when so-called conservatives are in power.

But that will take a commitment to pack the executive agencies only with people who share every view of the GOP platform the same way Obama appointed only those who shared his values. It will take a catharsis for elected Republicans to finally end their identity crisis and move beyond simply being “better than Obama” or “the lesser of two evils.” It will take an affirmative agenda—a positive, consistent, intellectually honest, and forward looking agenda on sovereignty, security, free markets, liberty, property rights, and a strong civil society. An agenda that can stand on its own veracity, not just as an opposing view to whatever the media or the Left is promulgating.

And finally, it means no more excuses. Republicans control all the levers of federal and most state powers and can easily roll back the critical items of the Obama years and forge a completely new path on so many domestic and foreign policy issues that have been locked in the failed intellectual ghetto of elitist political thought. Stop talking about Obama, Hillary, the media, or blaming failure to repeal Obamacare on something as absurd as a parliamentarian. Who are we and what do we stand for affirmatively? The only context in which we should continue to mention Obama is to remind ourselves of his determination and zeal to see his agenda actualized through thick and thin.

The success or failure of Republicans in the next four years will boil down to this simple question: if liberals are willing to sacrifice it all in order to implement their agenda unconstitutionally, how much more so should we harness every constitutional means of advancing the ideas this party supposedly adopted in the much-vaunted platform of 2016? (For more from the author of “The Triumph of Obama: What Conservatives Can Learn from the Liberal Warrior” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Decision to Commute Manning Proves Liberals Will Always Choose Political Gain over Justice

In light of President Obama’s commutation of national traitor Chelsea Manning Tuesday, the looming question of whether Manning’s status as a transgender “woman” had anything to do with the decision remains. Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld speculated Wednesday about whether a non-trans individual in Manning’s situation would have enjoyed such a generous (and completely asinine) pardon:

If this were just an average guy that had leaked this stuff and just went to jail as an average guy and didn’t go and have a sex change and become a sympathetic character, would that person be treated differently? I think that person would be treated differently from Chelsea Manning.

There is reason to believe that Manning’s status as a “sympathetic character” played a role in his commutation, given Obama’s never-ending effort to appeal to the far Left. And if courting the favor of anti-establishment liberals was the goal, Obama succeeded.

The disgraced former U.S. Army soldier received support from Hollywood figures and prominent SJWs, who touted him as a “hero” of the LGBT community. WikiLeaks touted the commutation as a “victory”:

Tuesday’s decision is just the latest debacle in Obama’s long history of administrative missteps (i.e. befriending enemies of liberty). Take the recent death of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro: Obama sent one of his closest aides to attend Castro’s funeral, and the White House formulated a sentimental tribute to the murderous tyrant.

The outgoing president’s commutation announcement Tuesday was met with harsh backlash from conservatives who noted the blatant hypocrisy of Obama pardoning Manning while his party continues to condemn Russia and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for allegedly tampering with the presidential election.

Others cited Manning’s commutation as further evidence of the Obama administration’s complete disregard for law and order:

In an interview with “CBS This Morning” Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest offered what is quite possibly the lamest response to this episode:

The thing that I think is outrageous is for Republicans to say is that somehow Chelsea Manning deserves a more serious punishment because of her collusion with Wikileaks and its damage to the country when they endorsed a man for president of the United States who praised Wikileaks, who encouraged people to go and check out Wikileaks and who encouraged Wikileaks to collude with the Russians to hack his opponent. It is outrageous for them to suggest that right now what Chelsea Manning did is worse than what the man who they endorsed for president did.

Even if it were true that the majority of Republicans approve of hacker Julian Assange, his anti-American activities, and his interference with the U.S. election (they don’t), since when did, “Republicans excuse traitors, too” become a viable defense for absolving a man who aided terrorists and put countless American lives at risk?

This was never about “justice.” The real reason for Obama’s preferential treatment of Chelsea Manning is that the LGBT and sexual identity issues have become the issue for the Left, presenting Obama another easy opportunity to play the social justice hero and deity — without any of the cost or fallout. His disgraceful decision shows an utter indifference toward justice and a disregard for the safety of American citizens. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Decision to Commute Manning Proves Liberals Will Always Choose Political Gain over Justice” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Story Media Bubble-Dwellers Won’t Tell You about Our ‘Divided’ Country

The narrative following the last election is that America is a deeply divided country. Split right down the middle on both values and vision.

But what if that isn’t exactly what’s happening here?

Clearly a deep divide exists within the country. However, what isn’t known is how much of the country this divide exists within.

Is it possible that since the parts of the country most estranged from and hostile to the ideals of American Exceptionalism also happens to be where the most of the media lives and works, as well where most of pop culture is produced, the conventional wisdom on how divided we are could be overblown?

The data suggests that could be case.

Democrats are at their lowest level of national representation in American politics since before the Great Depression. Hillary Clinton won fewer than 15% of the nation’s counties, despite winning the overall national popular vote by more than 2 million votes. A margin, by the way, which came entirely from one state. Minus the leftist home world known as the People’s Republic of California, Donald Trump actually won the popular vote by well over a million votes everywhere else.

Trump also won Pennsylvania, which a Republican hasn’t won since 1988. He won Wisconsin, which a Republican hasn’t won since 1984. He won Iowa, which Republicans have only won once since 1988. He won Michigan, which a Republican hasn’t won since 1988. And he broke those decades-long trends by doing pretty much everything GOP consultants — who demand bland — have been advising the party’s standard-bearers not to do all this time.

Not to mention Trump’s own considerable personal baggage, including a frustrating tendency to seemingly find the most boorish way possible to communicate — even when it clearly isn’t necessary.

If you look at the below map of this election you actually see a lot of agreement on which direction to take the country, alongside concentrated pockets of resistance.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not having conservative delusions of grandeur, just because it appears rumors of America’s alleged leftist takeover have been greatly exaggerated. Given what I do for a living I fight on the frontlines for conservatism every day, so I’m well aware of the fact what I’m fighting for isn’t the majority view in the country, either. After all, we just went through an election when GOP primary voters rejected any semblance of conservatism in nominating Trump, as well as a general election that was almost completely devoid of conservative themes and ideas.

But what we conservatives are fighting for is a return to the ideals that founded the country, rather than the radical departure away from them progressives seek. So even if America isn’t quite ready yet for limited government (and it’s clearly not), where the country stands politically at the moment proves most Americans have rejected the existential upheaval the Left is after.

For example, reasonable people can disagree on what restrictions regarding gun ownership are prudent in light of the Second Amendment. But the Left wants to debate whether private citizens should own guns at all.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether those of the same gender should be permitted lawfully to have relationships with one another, provided they’re not imposing on anybody else’s freedom in the process. But the Left wants to force those who morally disagree with homosexuality to be compelled by government to violate their own conscience in order to function as a full-fledged member of society.

Reasonable people can disagree whether schools should teach our children abstinence, offer birth control, or remain silent on the matter altogether. But the Left wants the killing of children not only protected by law but supported by tax dollars.

And it doesn’t stop there. Heck, the Left seeks the complete dismantling of gender altogether. One of the most fundamental recognitions required of any civilized, enlightened society.

See, it appears what our friends on the Left call division is really discernment. The rest of America has simply chosen not to bankrupt themselves fiscally and morally as our friends on the Left have. It’s not that the rest of America isn’t smart enough to ingest progressive magical thinking, it’s that they’re smart enough not to. (For more from the author of “The Story Media Bubble-Dwellers Won’t Tell You about Our ‘Divided’ Country” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why CNN Contributor Marc Lamont Hill Was Wrong to Call Trump’s Diversity Council ‘Mediocre Negroes’

What do NFL stars Jim Brown and Ray Lewis, Family Feud host Steve Harvey, rap great Kanye West, megachurch pastor Darrell Scott, Dr. Ben Carson, and Martin Luther King, III, have in common? They are all black. They have all met with (or worked with) President-elect Trump and spoken of their interaction positively. And they are apparently guilty of being “mediocre Negroes” in the eyes of CNN-contributor and Morehouse College professor Marc Lamont Hill.

Speaking about Trump’s new “diversity coalition,” Hill described them as “a bunch of mediocre Negroes being dragged in front of TV as a photo-op for Donald Trump’s exploitative campaign against black people.”

And speaking of Steve Harvey, who recently met with Trump and said he would be working with Dr. Carson to help the HUD, Hill opined, “My disagreement is the way in which [Steve Harvey is] being used by folk like Donald Trump. Again, his intention is just to have a seat at the table. But when you’re at the table, you should have experts at the table. You should have people who can challenge the president at the table.”

When Hill was castigated for this comment, he quickly claimed he wasn’t talking about Jim Brown, the NFL legend who stood side by side with Muhammad Ali for years, or of Steve Harvey, or even of Ben Caron, whom he described as a “mediocre choice for HUD” but an “extraordinary human.” Instead, he stated that he “referred to the Trump Diversity Council,” of which neither Brown nor Harvey were a part.

I will take Hill at his word, but it’s quite odd, to say the least, to mention Harvey in the very same interview in which he speaks of these “mediocre Negroes,” also stating that “because they keep bringing up comedians and actors and athletes to represent black interests [it’s] demeaning, it’s disrespectful, and it’s condescending. Bring some people up there with some expertise, Donald Trump, don’t just bring up people to entertain.”

So, these “comedians and actors and athletes” — which would certainly include Brown, Lewis, Harvey, and probably West — are not “mediocre Negroes,” simply because they didn’t appear in the photo-op for the president’s diversity council? Really? And he can use the same word, “mediocre,” when speaking of Carson as the presumptive head of HUD but he didn’t mean to say that Carson was a “mediocre Negro.” Seriously?

It’s Ugly & Racist

Either way, whomever he was speaking about, how is it not ugly and racist to call a fellow black person a Negro, let alone a mediocre Negro?

Can you imagine if a conservative white broadcaster like Sean Hannity — or even a conservative black commentator like Larry Elder — said something like that on Fox News? The moral indignation and the calls for that person’s head would be both non-stop and over the top. (Just think of what happened to sports commentator and baseball great Curt Schilling, himself a conservative, fired from ESPN after what was deemed an offensive Facebook meme about bathroom access for transgenders.)

But a black commentator on liberal CNN can use the derogatory term “Negro,” surely pointing back to an earlier period in our history when blacks quietly suffered indignation and segregation, and to date, to my knowledge the network has neither rebuked him nor distanced itself from his comment.

More insultingly, some of those who have been part of Trump’s National Diversity Coalition include Bruce Levell, a prominent Georgia Republican, Alveda King, Dr. King’s niece, Lynne Patton, vice president of the Eric Trump Foundation, Brunell Donald-Kyei, an attorney and former Democratic Lt. Gov. candidate for the state of Illinois, and Dr. N. Denise Mitchem, VP of Corporate Relations and Government Affairs, UST Global — all of them black. Are they part of Hill’s group of “mediocre Negroes”?

As for Hill’s accusation that all these people are being used as tools “for Donald Trump’s exploitative campaign against black people,” does that “exploitative campaign” include things like improving the quality of life in the inner-cities, providing more job opportunities for black Americans, undoing the destructive policies of the left, and appointing people like Carson to head up HUD?

“Blackness” Measured by Ideology

What I find most galling, though, is that, for quite a few years now, “blackness” is measured by one’s ideology rather than by the color of one’s skin (or even by a person’s life experience). Consequently, black friends of mine who are conservative are commonly told by their fellow-blacks that they are “not black enough” or “not black anymore,” as if they have not had the same life experiences or are not subject to the same racial profiling.

Black is now an ideology more than a skin color. (Similarly, “gay” not only describes a sexual orientation but an ideology, and conservative gays are seen as betraying their real identity.)

Not surprisingly, on his Prager U video “The Top 5 Issues Facing Black Americans,” Taleeb Starkes, himself black, listed as problem number 4 “Lack of Diversity,” decrying the virtual absence of “honest dialogue between blacks and blacks.”

Dare to differ with the party line, and you’re a traitor to the cause and a traitor to your people. You’re hardly even black anymore. You’re just a “mediocre Negro.”

In my book, it’s not much better for a black man to refer to a fellow black person as a “mediocre Negro” because of a difference in ideology than for a white man to refer to a black person as a n***** because he hates the color of his skin.

Are they not both blatant examples of racism? And are not Hill’s comments the latest example of divisive and destructive identity politics? If you read this, Mr. Hill, surely you can do better. Surely you can step higher, unless your agenda is to divide and destroy.

Is it? (For more from the author of “Why CNN Contributor Marc Lamont Hill Was Wrong to Call Trump’s Diversity Council ‘Mediocre Negroes'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.