In a recent episode of my podcast The Renegade Republican, I lamented the fact that conservatives and liberals have a difficult time communicating with one another.
During my time in electoral politics, I often left a conversation with a liberal voter scratching my head and wondering where I went wrong. Often, it appeared as if the liberal and I weren’t even having the same conversation.
This got me thinking: Maybe we weren’t having the same conversation. As I mentally rewound many of these conversations and evaluated them, it became clear that when it came to discussing specific topics, I was talking about one thing, and the liberal was talking about something else. Here are some examples of what I experienced:
1. Health care
When discussing health care, conservatives are typically referring to the actual care of people’s health and well-being. Conservatives associate the health care debate with health care outcomes. In other words, is our country a place where people can actually choose their doctor, be seen in a timely manner, acquire needed medications, and able to make critical decisions about their health — free of government interference?
But, this isn’t what most liberals are talking about when they are debating “health care.” Liberals are typically discussing “coverage,” not actual health care. And this is where the communication gap originates.
Today’s liberals aren’t as much concerned with health outcomes — access to doctors and hospitals or choice of doctor or hospital — as they are with government edicts ensuring “coverage.” In other words, as long as the law can be used to say, “You’re covered,” even if the health care coverage is more expensive, more restrictive, and more bureaucratic, liberals think the debate is over and are therefore uninterested in additional dialogue.
2. Education
When discussing education, conservatives are typically referring to educational outcomes. Conservatives associate the word “education” with the acquisition of cognitive skills. In other words, are our kids learning anything? But this isn’t what most liberals are talking about when they are debating “education.”
Unfortunately, liberals often talk about government spending. And while no credible conservative doubts that money must be expended to educate children, the amount spent is not the primary determinant of the quality of the learning experience. We can’t have a sensible conversation if we conservatives are talking about the learning experience and the outcomes it provides, while liberals focus primarily on the government dollars provided.
3. Economy
Conservatives refer to policies that will grow the economy. We understand that both the value of a dollar and the likelihood that it will be used in a manner that adds to our national prosperity increase when when the earner gets to keep that dollar and chooses how to spend it .
In other words, are we growing more prosperous or not? But this isn’t what liberals are talking about when they debate about the economy. Liberals talk about who has the money — not how we multiply the value of our money through growth. Their viewpoint is evident; simply analyze their speech.
Next time you’re engaged in a debate with a liberal friend, count how many times he uses the terms “income inequality” or “income distribution” in comparison with the terms “economic freedom” or “free market.”
Conservatives avoid the term “income distribution” because income is not distributed; it is earned. And conservatives avoid the term “income inequality” because we are genuinely focused on how to make everyone more prosperous.
By the way, if you’re a liberal shaking your head while reading this, then you are proving my point. Your refusal to believe that conservatives care about everyone’s economic prosperity, educational outcomes, and health is prima facie evidence that the communications gap among liberals and conservatives is real. (For more from the author of “Why Liberals and Conservatives Can’t Communicate” please click HERE)
Among the long list of foreign leaders phoning President-elect Donald Trump in recent days was Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev. According to some press reports, Trump described Kazakhstan’s progress since gaining its independence from the Soviet Union as “a miracle.”
If Trump was referring to the country’s economic progress since the mid-1990s, his description wasn’t far off. Yes, many Central Asian countries have faced daunting economic challenges, but in many ways Kazakhstan has been able to rise above the others.
During the early years of independence from Moscow, between 1991 (when Nazarbayev assumed the presidency) and 1995, the Kazakh economy contracted by 31 percent—a bleak situation, to say the least. However, since 2000, the economy has more than recovered, growing on average by 8 percent annually in the first decade of the new century.
When The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom started scoring Kazakhstan’s performance in 1998, the country ranked 136th in the world in terms of economic freedom. Today, it ranks 68th, actually placing it ahead of Western nations such as France and Italy. And Kazakhstan aims to do better.
In 2012, its government set a goal of becoming one of the world’s top 30 developed countries by 2050. So far it has made good progress.
Whether you describe Kazakhstan’s economic growth as a “miracle” (as did Trump) or simply “impressive” (as did the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), this nation of 17 million has made tremendous strides over the past two decades.
Which is why Trump can rightly ponder: What role can Kazakhstan play to help his administration on the world stage?
U.S. foreign policy over the past eight years has left the world more unstable and less predictable. America’s adversaries have been appeased and emboldened; allies have felt abandoned, and certain regions outright ignored.
One of the ignored regions is Central Asia. Though often overlooked, this region is important in regard to challenges such as nuclear proliferation, religious extremism, an increasingly provocative Russia and rising China, a destabilized Afghanistan, and an emboldened Iran. Kazakhstan sits smack dab in the middle of all of this and is emerging as a regional leader.
It is especially well-suited to help on the issue of nuclear nonproliferation.
One of the country’s greatest achievements since 1991 has been its strong commitment to the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.
It divested itself of all the nukes left behind by the Soviets, and Kazakhs are proud of this fact. As North Korea continues to test nuclear weapons and as the future of the Iran nuclear deal remains uncertain, Kazakhstan’s voice in the nonproliferation debate is crucial.
Or consider the rise of Islamist terrorism. As a secular, Muslim-majority country, Kazakhstan has been able to counter the rise of extremism, making it a natural partner for the U.S.
Another consideration for the U.S. is Kazakhstan’s potential for oil and gas exports to help Europe break its energy dependence on Russia. Freeing Europe from this dependence would directly affect Europe’s security and, potentially, the need for the U.S. to act on its treaty obligations under NATO.
Since the 1990s, Western energy giants, including Chevron and Exxon, have helped Kazakhstan develop some of the largest oil fields on the planet, including Tengiz, Kashagan (which finally came online earlier this year), and Karachaganak.
Human rights problems inevitably loom over U.S. policymaking throughout the region. The U.S. should have a frank, open, and constructive dialogue with its allies in the region when and where there are human rights issues—with the goal of long-term democratization.
However, human rights should be just one part of a multifaceted relationship that considers broader U.S. strategic interests and stability in the region. One issue should not automatically trump the others.
So far it seems that Trump understands this. Let’s hope we see this in practice.
If the U.S. is to have a strategy to deal with the many challenges it faces overseas, then building strong and pragmatic relations with Kazakhstan’s capital, Astana, is a must. A new U.S. administration can re-energize our relationship, and the timing now is excellent.
Kazakhstan can be a useful partner in the United Nations when it begins its term as a nonpermanent member of the U.N. Security Council next month.
Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, once said: “The nation with the most allies generally wins; that’s what history teaches.”
The U.S. needs friends in Central Asia, and Kazakhstan has many shared interests—and a lot going for it. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Welcome Interest in Kazakhstan, and Why It Matters” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Donald_Trump_8567813820_2-1.jpg8531280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-12-12 19:38:042016-12-12 19:38:04Trump’s Welcome Interest in Kazakhstan, and Why It Matters
When Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, you didn’t see Republicans whining. Quite the contrary: They got to work and launched the Tea Party wave. Unsurprisingly, after spending the year insulated in their Brooklyn safe space, the Clinton team has perfected the art of whining since voters rebuked them in early November. They are blaming everyone and everything but themselves and their horrible candidate for their loss. It’s really starting to get embarrassing.
While it is hard to select just one whine as the whiniest, there seems to be a winner.
Drumroll, please …
And the award for whiniest Clinton team whine goes to … Jennifer Palmieri, communications director for Clinton’s campaign. You know the person most responsible — after Clinton herself — for the tone-deafness of the campaign.
Palmieri got into a verbal altercation with Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway last week at Harvard University. The disdain was palpable.
Palmieri started the fireworks by stating that she was “more proud of Hillary Clinton’s alt-‘Right’ speech than any other moment of the campaign.” This statement elicited an audible, “Wow” from Conway. It got more heated from there when Conway asked Palmieri to explain, “How exactly did we win?” after Palmieri said she would “rather lose” than “win the way you did.”
Conway got the better of the altercation.
Now Palmieri is taking another shot at Conway this time in a Washington Post op-ed. She pats herself on the back, with both hands, for “standing up” to Conway. Then goes off on a diatribe about how Clinton really won, and basically the Trump administration has no mandate.
But it’s also important for the winners of this campaign to think long and hard about the voters who rejected them. I haven’t seen much evidence of such introspection from the Trump side. That’s concerning.
She then says that Trump’s words hurt people. It is basically a rehash of their entire campaign. That Trump’s a mean bully who won’t be the president, even if he got elected. Because as Palmieri likes “to note, Clinton received more votes for president than any white man in U.S. history.”
You can just feel the condescension with those words. Of course, they are meaningless because Trump actually won where it mattered. As far as a mandate goes, Trump has a pretty strong one. Conway explained to Chuck Todd after the encounter about the mandate:
People open up their mailboxes and fire up their computers and see these premium increases. But, you know, the idea that he doesn’t have a mandate, when on President Obama’s watch they now lost the White House, 60 seats in the House, over a dozen Senate seats, over a dozen governorships, and over 1,000 state legislative seats, this Democratic party is having an identity crisis in a circular firing squad, and what I heard at Harvard is the same thing I hear all the time, “It’s Jim Comey’s fault, it’s Bernie Sanders’ fault.”
There is most definitely a Republican-governing mandate. When folks like Palmieri claim there is none, they are trying to delegitimize a Trump presidency like they did to George W. Bush. Trump and his team seem willing to fight back hard against that.
Almost daily you hear another Democrat, or media analyst, talking about how Trump’s picks for his administration are going to destroy the country — or most laughably the environment. Take for example Dan Pfeiffer, a former member of the Obama administration.
At the risk of being dramatic. Scott Pruitt at EPA is an existential threat to the planet
That’s right. Up until the end, global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism.
These folks wonder why Trump can’t be gracious and consensus building like — make sure you have no fluids in your mouth for this — Barack Obama. (If you did a spit take, I warned you.) That’s right. They still can’t see that to many everyday Americans, Obama was worse and more divisive than their wildest fantasies about Donald Trump.
So maybe they should just take what Obama said after the 2008 election to heart. I’ve slightly edited it for them, “Elections have consequences and …” Donald Trump “… won.” (For more from the author of “Team Clinton Can’t Stop Whining, and It’s Getting Embarrassing” please click HERE)
On his radio program Friday evening, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin ripped into reports that Ronna Romney McDaniel, Mitt Romney’s niece, is on the verge of being picked by Trump as chair of the Republican National Committee. Trump’s preference for chair would still need to be voted on by the full committee.
Mark lit into the pick and the outsized influence Reince Priebus is having on the Trump transition.
Listen:
Levin discussed how Priebus and Trump made a deal back at the Republican National Convention. Priebus got almost dictatorial control over the Committee, and Trump stopped a conscience vote on the floor. I wrote extensively about this back in July.
Before closing with a rebuke of the number of Goldman Sachs employees in the administration, Levin said, “We are draining the swamp with the swamp monsters.”
The new boss seems to be acting a lot like the old bosses lately. (For more from the author of “Mark Levin: Trump Is Draining the Swamp … ‘With the Swamp Monsters!'” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/16501780668_ddc64019e8_b-1.jpg6831024kfranceshttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngkfrances2016-12-09 20:47:532016-12-09 20:47:53Mark Levin: Trump Is Draining the Swamp … ‘With the Swamp Monsters!’
Donald Trump is taking quite a bit of flak for appointing Goldman Sachs President and Chief Operating Officer Gary Cohn to be his National Economic Council Director.
BREAKING: President-elect Trump picks Goldman Sachs president & COO Gary Cohn to be National Economic Council Director – @NBCNews
Cohn marks the fourth Goldman Sachs appointment into the administration. He joins 17-year Goldman Sachs veteran Steve Mnuchin, who was nominated to be Secretary of the Treasury, and former Goldman Sachs investment banker and managing partner Steven K. Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, in the cabinet. Also, Anthony Scaramucci, who spent seven years at Goldman Sachs, is advising the president-elect on the transition team.
This coziness with Goldman Sachs stands in stark contrast to statements President-elect Trump made on the campaign trail. Trump pointedly attacked rival Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) repeatedly on the issue of Cruz’s connections to the financial giant. Cruz’s wife Heidi is a former Goldman Sachs employee.
Is Cruz honest? He is in bed w/ Wall St. & is funded by Goldman Sachs/Citi, low interest loans. No legal disclosure & never sold off assets.
“I know the guys at Goldman Sachs,” Trump once said. “They have total, total control over [Cruz]. Just like they have total control over Hillary Clinton.”
Despite all that rhetoric blasting Goldman Sachs, Trump has not hesitated to move Goldman Sachs alumni into positions of power in his administration. Several people have picked up on the hypocrisy.
Trump attacked wall street, attacked Cruz on Goldman Sachs relationship, attacked Clinton on same, now surrounds himself with Goldman Sachs.
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/19587034648_cdb91f7ebf_b-3.jpg6831024kfranceshttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngkfrances2016-12-09 20:43:162016-12-09 20:43:16Trump Used to Hate Goldman Sachs. What Happened?
Speaking on Capitol Hill on Thursday, Hillary Clinton warned of “the epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year.” Coming from a very different perspective, Milwaukee sheriff David Clarke claimed on Fox News that “fake news” was created by the liberal media, beginning with the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” propaganda in the police shooting of Michael Brown in 2014. Clarke pointed directly to the New York Times and the Washington Post in allegedly spreading this “fake news.”
In reality, I believe that “fake news” is far more pervasive than we realize, for the following reasons.
1. Headlines are often fake.
I used to assume (wrongly so) that a headline was simply a short (even if sensational) summary of an important news item, but in many cases today, headlines now put a slant (often a misleading slant) on the news being reported.
To cite a recent (and highly relevant) example, on Thursday, the Drudge Report featured as its main story, “BITTER HILLARY BLAMES ‘FAKE NEWS’,” suggesting that Hillary directly blamed her defeat on “fake news.”
The Drudge headline was linked to an article on The Hill titled “Clinton blasts ‘epidemic’ of fake news,” yet nowhere did that article state that a “bitter Hillary” directly blamed fake news for her defeat. Instead, the article quoted her as saying that “it’s now clear the so-called fake news can have real-world consequences,” also stating, “This isn’t about politics or partisanship … Lives are at risk — lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days, to do their jobs, contribute to their communities.”
She was apparently referring to an incident this week in which“a gunman entered a pizzeria in Washington that was at the center of a false viral conspiracy theory that alleged it was home to a pedophilia ring operated by Clinton and her inner circle.”
The Hill article did note that “some Democrats have argued the spread of anti-Clinton fake news online contributed to her electoral loss to Donald Trump,” but nowhere did it state that a bitter Hillary blamed this for her defeat, which was clearly implied by Drudge. Yet how many millions of Drudge readers even bothered to read the article carefully, let alone listen to the whole speech?
2. News articles often put their own slant on speeches and events.
During the Republican primaries, Jeb Bush was giving a talk to a small group of supporters, and after making a point he thought was important, he then suggested with a smile that it would be a good moment for applause. I watched the video and thought it was a cute moment — I looked at it through the perspective of a public speaker myself — and I asked my wife Nancy to watch it as well. She too thought it was cute rather than embarrassing.
But quite a few media outlets reported on poor Jeb’s embarrassing moment, supplying their interpretation of the facts rather than simply reporting the news — really, there was nothing to report — meaning that readers who did not watch the video would likely draw a very different conclusion from those who viewed the video for themselves. This too is “fake news.”
3. We are so used to getting our news through biased media outlets and opinion commentaries that we fail to use a good filter.
A few years ago, my radio producer handed me an article during my live, daily talk show, documenting how Ann Coulter had made a comment on a major news network that would be considered extreme even for her. It so caught my attention that I talked about it during my next segment, only to find out that my producer had been duped by a false website (something he is always on the lookout for) and that I had not spotted the deception either.
It’s one thing, though, to be duped by intentionally fake, satirical news sites, like The Onion, which proudly (and facetiously) calls itself “America’s Finest News Source,” or the Christian site The Babylon Bee, which bills itself as “Your Trusted Source for Christian News Satire,” perhaps to help its all-too-gullible Christian readers.
It’s another thing not to realize that the news as reported by Breitbart is often quite different than the news as reported by the Huffington Post (the two websites sometimes appear to be operating in alternative universes) or to fail to remember that many articles on these news sites are often opinion pieces which, by design, offer the commentator’s particular bias.
What this means is that we need a “hermeneutic of suspicion” (to use the phrase of a biblical scholar, meaning, that we ought to read some things with a level of suspicion), doing our best to get our facts in order before repeating them or forming opinions based on them. It also means that we should recognize which websites and news sources tend to be most reliable, giving more weight to what they have to say.
Most of all, it means that in this era of sound bites and memes, we need to learn to think again — that’s right, we need to learn how to engage our brains in focused thinking and reasoning — rather than merely repeating what our favorite website or commentator or reporter has to say.
I can assure you that it’s well worth the effort. (For more from the author of “‘Fake News’ Is Far More Pervasive Than We Realize” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/social-media-419944_960_720.png720960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-12-09 20:03:482016-12-09 20:03:48‘Fake News’ Is Far More Pervasive Than We Realize
Right now, before he takes office, President-elect Trump can do more than Barack Obama accomplished in eight years, and send a message to radical Islamists around the world that “America is back.” Here’s how:
The Republic of Sudan has been dominated by a brutal, autocratic regime since 1989. The ruling National Congress Party (NCP), which was formally called the “National Islamic Front,” is led by President Omar al Bashir, the only sitting president under indictment by the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The Unpunished Author of Anti-Christian Genocide
Bashir’s human rights track record is abysmal. Not only is he the main culprit in the 23-year genocidal war against South Sudan, which killed more than 2 million indigenous Christian and animists and displaced another 5 million from their homes. Bashir is also the architect of the infamous Darfur Genocide. More recently in 2011, Bashir has taken his brutal tactics to the contested Nuba mountain and Blue Nile regions where a total blockade, combined with an aerial terror campaign which targets civilians, is threatening 2 million more lives.
Bashir’s government is on the verge of bankruptcy, with a suffocating debt of more than $60 billion which it cannot repay. Sudan’s currency has collapsed, there are shortages everywhere, and recent “austerity measures” have led to thousands of Sudanese taking to the streets in protest. More than a half-dozen opposition political parties have called for Bashir to step aside and allow for multi-party elections.
America Can Stop Sudan’s Islamists without Firing a Shot
For Bashir to avoid a total collapse of his government, he desperately needs to “normalize” relations with the U.S. (and consequently with the international community). The U.S. has economically kept Bashir’s government at arm’s length.
In 1997, the Clinton Administration slapped Sudan with economic sanctions, which were later expanded under President George W. Bush. Following 9/11, the Bush administration played a key role in helping to facilitate the end of conflict in what is now South Sudan, and the Nuba mountains region in the north. The genocide in Darfur was largely neglected, but a young Senator from Illinois pledged to address it by ratcheting up sanctions, and putting a robust UN force on the ground to stop the killing.
That young senator was later elected president, and proceeded to do next to nothing.
Obama Abandoned Sudan’s Helpless Civilians
President Obama’s Sudan policy has been one of moral abdication and abandonment. Sudan expert Eric Reeves summed it up by saying that Obama “has offered Sudan nothing but hypocrisy and bad faith. His shame will far outlive his presidency.”
Due to America’s abdication of its critical role in pressuring Bashir to stop targeting and persecuting ethnic and religious minorities, Sudan has continued its cycle of endless internal wars, massive humanitarian crises, and destabilization of the whole region.
In the contested areas of the Nuba mountains and the Blue Nile, Bashir’s government has doubled down on its policy to Islamicize all of Sudan. Since 2011, it has blockaded Christian regions. Journalists are prohibited. The Nuba, which is home to Sudan’s largest Christian community, has especially been hit hard by ground attacks and aerial terror, which targets market places, schools, hospitals, and churches.
The brazen war crimes Bashir continues to commit have brought new charges by Amnesty International of the use of chemical weapons against civilians.
Sudan’s capital, Khartoum, sees almost daily routine abuses such as seizing newspaper runs, shutting down broadcasting networks, arbitrary arrests, tortures, detentions, mysterious disappearances and deaths.
Obama Played Footsie with Islamists
Yet the U.S. State Department continues to flirt with the NCP, softening sanctions, and publicly praising the regime for its cooperation in “sharing intelligence” to fight the war on terror. But there is very little evidence to show that Sudan has provided much more than useless “faux intelligence,” even as it continues to harbor and host many of the allies and assets of ISIS and Al Qaeda in Khartoum!
Philosophically and practically, the NCP elite is comprised of the same stripe of extreme Islamist radicals we are up against in Syria and Iraq. Sudan’s recent decision to break with Iran and pursue closer engagement with Saudi Arabia was motivated primarily by finances, netting Bashir $5 billion in military aid and another $10 billion in direct investment.
Sudan has been a hot-house, incubating extremism since its independence in 1955. The only real difference between ISIS and Bashir’s NCP regime is that Sudan has a seat at the UN. Religious persecution and the aerial terror campaign against Darfur, plus the Nuba and Blue Nile regions, were among the stated reasons for President Bush’s decision to continue sanctions against Sudan.
Christians Rotting in Sudan’s Jails
Right now, four Christians are languishing in a Sudan prison under false charges of espionage, intelligence gathering, war against the state, and several other manufactured “crimes.” At least five of the charges carry the death penalty or life imprisonment. Two of the men are Nuba pastors. One is a Darfur convert. The last is a European missionary and aid worker.
Petr Jasek has been separated from his family for one year. He was arrested a full year ago, on December 9th, 2015, while on a trip to visit with Sudanese Christians to offer medical and other humanitarian assistance. The other prisoners were apparently detained and jailed for meeting and speaking freely with Mr. Jasek about the oppression and persecutions they had experienced at the hands of their own government. Jasek spent eight months in prison before he was even brought to court, in clear violation of Sudanese law.
Another reason Sudan is targeting Jasek is for his work as a humanitarian and past affiliation with two American charities which have been active in providing humanitarian assistance to the Nuba people: Voice of the Martyrs and Persecution Project Foundation.
American Volunteers are Making a Difference
U.S. organizations and citizens have played a major role in thwarting Bashir’s effort to (in his words) “take out the garbage” in the Nuba region. The main doctor at the primary referral hospital in the Nuba is celebrated American missionary Tom Catena. The primary embedded news source in the Nuba was founded by American missionary and former Samaritan’s Purse field director Ryan Boyette, who led the effort to rebuild more than 200 Nuba churches destroyed by Bashir’s forced Islamization and Arabization policies.
All of these organizations are collectively supported by millions of Americans. While the Obama Administration has been playing diplomatic footsie with Islamists in Sudan and around the world, millions of private Americans have been confronting extremism through compassion towards its victims.
Trump Can Face Down Extremists and be a Hero
President-elect Trump has a real opportunity to bring American policy towards Islamists in line with the actions and desires of the American people, and his campaign promises to take on the forces of radical Islam.
And this worries President Bashir. Consequently, he’s turned on the charm and tried to flatter President Trump:
[W]e can deal with double-faced people, but here we have a person with a clear line … I am convinced that it will be much easier to deal with Trump than with others because he is a straightforward person.
Bashir is right that President-elect Trump is a straightforward person. And America has endured eight years of morally confused, counter-productive, and indecisive weakness in dealing with radical Islam. We desperately need a leader who can tell the good guys from the villains.
Lets hope that under a bold new Trump Administration, America will take the lead again in standing against terrorism and suppression of religious freedom and basic human rights.
America must no longer deal with Islamist bullies as the moral equivalent of normal, democratic leaders. President-elect Trump should send a firm message to President Bashir: “Thanks for the compliments. You’re right: I will draw the line. And you are on the wrong side of it. America is an ally of all those who struggle for the same basic freedoms of worship, association and expression that every American enjoys. Our friendship is with the victims of oppression, and not the perpetrators of war crimes and genocide.”
Trump should not entertain talk of “normalized relations” while Sudan continues to be led by a step-child of the Muslim Brotherhood, a man who is one of the oldest allies of international terror — who wages terror against his own people, and colludes with those who practice it abroad.
A strong message to the Sudanese government even before Trump takes office could set many prisoners free, including Mr. Jasek, and put Islamists around the world on notice that America is back.
This is Mr. Trump’s “Iran Hostage Moment” and he should seize it. (For more from the author of “Sudan: Trump’s Iran Hostage Moment” please click HERE)
Just a few weeks ago, President-elect Donald Trump said, “Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars.”
And I absolutely agree. Since 2007, I’ve been fighting to end the dangerous existence of sanctuary cities by introducing legislation every Congress.
During the Obama administration’s tenure, over 300 cities—including my hometown of New Orleans—have provided safe haven for illegal immigrants, and at least 170,000 convicted criminal illegal immigrants who have been ordered to be deported remain at-large.
But now, I’m extremely optimistic the U.S. will soon make real efforts to end sanctuary cities under the leadership of Trump.
Sanctuary cities are dangerous and counterproductive to both law enforcement efforts and reducing illegal immigration.
Ending these policies is not so much about imposing new and burdensome immigration laws, as about simple enforcement of our current laws and ensuring local law enforcement jurisdictions work collaboratively with federal immigration authorities when they come across criminal illegal immigrants.
After the tragic murder of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco in April 2015, there has been growing momentum to end dangerous sanctuary city policies. She is far from being the only victim of a crime committed by a criminal illegal immigrant.
In LaPlace, Louisiana, this past August, three people were killed and dozens of others were injured when Denis Yasmir Amaya Rodriguez, an illegal immigrant, crashed a bus full of volunteers on their way to assist folks impacted by our recent 1,000-year flooding event. And this accident could have absolutely been prevented.
My hometown of New Orleans has been operating as a sanctuary city for several months now, having implemented regulations in February that bar New Orleans police officers from inquiring about individuals’ immigration status and then sharing that information with federal authorities.
It wasn’t until late September—due to much pressure from myself and others—that local officials made a small step toward complying with my request to reverse the city’s policy, but even now the city of New Orleans is not in complete compliance with federal law.
This policy is in direct conflict with federal law and is simply unacceptable. Worse still, these cities are actively releasing criminal illegal immigrants back into our communities instead of working with federal officials to deport them or lock them up.
I’ve offered several pieces of legislation that tackle this problem head on. My bill with the most traction is the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act.
Until we end all dangerous and illegal sanctuary city policies—which I am confident will happen sooner than later—the obvious first step is to enact tangible penalties for those cities refusing to comply with federal immigration laws, like limiting the flow of billions of federal taxpayer dollars.
There is absolutely no justifiable reason to reward these jurisdictions with federal funding when they are in clear violation of the law and are actually making our communities more dangerous rather than safer. Falling short of enforcing our laws designed to protect innocent American civilian lives is an absolute nonstarter.
Stopping these illegal policies and assuring safety for every American has to be an absolute top priority for the new Congress and president. America spoke clearly in November that the days of turning a blind eye to criminal illegal immigrants and similar misguided policies is over.
I am very eager to see Trump putting an end to dangerous sanctuary cities as soon as possible in the new year. (For more from the author of “How Donald Trump Can Put an End to Sanctuary Cities” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Donald_Trump_25218642186-2.jpg20293044Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-12-09 19:49:192016-12-09 19:49:19How Donald Trump Can Put an End to Sanctuary Cities
I was 17 years old when I first witnessed an evangelical “excommunication.” It was disturbing, sad, frightening, unnerving — and necessary. Unfortunately, excommunication is often misunderstood, even by Vocabulary.com. The online guide claims that “excommunication is a formal way of describing what happens when someone gets kicked out of his or her church, for good.” It goes on to say:
Excommunication is really a kind of banishment, a punishment that’s handed out by a church when one of its members breaks some important church rule.
No, no and no. Merriam-Webster’s definition is much better. The dictionary discusses the rights of church membership that are affected, but also highlights that it’s “an exclusion from fellowship in a group or community.” That’s more like it. It’s exclusion, but not necessarily permanent.
Yes, We’re All Guilty
It’s an unfortunate reality and a consequence of our humanity that each of us sins. Some are just a little better at sinning with the noticeable stuff. In some cases, certainly not all, this warrants excommunication from the body of believers. In the case at my church, it was temporary. A married woman was in a relationship with another man and, although she cried profusely in front of the church body, she refused to end the relationship. So she was cut off from our body of believers temporarily. Call it grace, call it true repentance, call it church policy but she was allowed back into the church after some time. This after she and her husband divorced and she married the man with whom she’d had an extramarital relationship.
For whatever reason, the church felt at that time that she was repentant and eligible to commune with the body once again.
But We Can See You Better
Situations like these get ugly when the sinner is a high-profile Christian leader, as in the case of Tullian Tchividjian, former pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church and grandson of “America’s Pastor” Billy Graham. Following his confession to extramarital affairs and subsequent divorce, many Christian leaders have recently signed a statement saying that Tchividjian has “disqualified” himself “from any form of public vocational ministry.” Tchividjian resigned from Coral Ridge in 2015 and worked for a while at Willow Creek Church near Chicago in a non-ministry post but was fired when it was discovered that he’d had another inappropriate relationship. Tchividjian re-married last month.
While pastors and friends in church leadership continue to plead publicly with Tchividjian to “repent of his wickedness and demonstrate his repentance by submitting himself to the leadership of his church of membership, pursuing forgiveness, healing, and reconciliation with those whom he has sinned against,” Tchividjian told Christianity Today that he is doing just that. “Nothing grieves me more than the fact that people are suffering because of my sins, both in my past as well as in the present,” he stated. “I want to be perfectly clear that I take full responsibility for this.” He went on to say:
Please pray for those who are most deeply affected and please respect their privacy. … God knows how sorry I am for all the damage I’ve caused and the people who have been hurt. Please pray that the good work God has begun will be carried out to completion.
Don’t Be a Stumbling Block
He said he is committed to the “painful and progressive process” of repentance. Yes, it’s painful, but oh-so-necessary, too. That’s because people, particularly those in high-profile positions of Christian leadership, have the capacity to harm the faith of others. My church failed to address the well-known sexual sin of my former fiancée. I struggled with my faith (and relationships) as a direct consequence of that for many years. Others undoubtedly did as well. Jesus knew this — about me and humans in general — and addressed it during a sermon at Capernaum:
Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. So watch yourselves (Luke 17:1-3).
Even more so, those in leadership will have to rise to a higher standard and will one day answer for their actions that caused others to fall: “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1).
Just Good Discipleship
Christianity Today’s Mark Galli wrote an insightful piece on church discipline last month, stating, “We do no one any favors if we ignore or downplay core beliefs.” His November 23 piece covered InterVarsity Christian Fellowship’s decision to ask employees who disagreed with their theological commitments on human sexuality to resign. IVCF takes a traditionally orthodox theological stance on the issue of human sexuality. Galli said that this isn’t a “witch hunt,” or “purge,” but simply good discipleship. The church must hold high standards set not by an arbitrary panel of human leaders but by the Leader of the Church, Jesus Christ. It is “crucial to be clear about doctrinal and ethical standards,” said Galli, something that IVCF is doing. To do less than clearly state biblical orthodoxy and hold the Word of God up as the standard would be a tremendous disservice to believers as they live out their faith. Not only because the sinner continues in a pattern of sin and outside of the holy will of God, but also because his or her sin will cause others to stumble in their faith.
With Grace In Mind At All Times
On the other hand, the Church must allow for grace, forgiveness and true repentance. 9Marks.org asserts correctly that “discipline is everything the church does to help its members pursue holiness and fight sin.” Once sin has gained a foothold in someone’s life, the goal is to draw the person back to holiness, not to permanently bar them from church. “Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.” (2 Timothy 2:25-26)
While it may be necessary to bar someone from church fellowship for a time, the goal is always to bring them back to fullness with Christ through true repentance. No, it isn’t permanent; no, it isn’t banishment; and no, it isn’t about “some important church rule” that has been broken. It’s allowing the broken person to come to a place of repentance and acceptance of God’s forgiveness, which ideally the Church mirrors in her love for the sinner — just as Tchividjian says he has experienced, as he expressed in a Facebook post:
I could tell you a thousand stories of the ways God has sweetly met me very specifically in my darkest and most despairing moments, of which there have been many. Through many of you, God has met my guilt with his grace, my mess with his mercy, my sin with his salvation.
(For more from the author of “Excommunication and the Church: A Dose of Discipline with a Side of Grace” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/cross-671379_960_720-3.jpg720960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-12-08 23:10:072016-12-09 06:35:16Excommunication and the Church: A Dose of Discipline with a Side of Grace
In an op-ed in the Financial Times, former Clinton Treasury secretary Larry Summers claims that Trump’s tax plans favor the rich anIn an op-ed in the Financial Times, former Clinton Treasury secretary Larry Summers claims that Trump’s tax plans favor the rich and will hamper economic growth.d will hamper economic growth. Summers, a liberal economist, simply recycles the typical progressive rhetoric that any tax cut — ever — adds to the debt, favors the rich, and will fail to encourage economic growth. He’s wrong, and here’s why.
1. Congress determines tax policy, not the president
Summers’ attempt to demagogue the Trump tax plan and imbue fear into the populace is exaggerated. In fact, if tax reform happens, it’s unlikely to look exactly like the proposal offered by Trump. After all, the president doesn’t determine tax policy — Congress does.
For example, look back at the Bush tax cuts. By comparison, the proposed cuts were smaller and less aggressive than what Trump’s proposing. Yet Bush still wasn’t able to convince Congress to agree to the very tax reform plan he ran on during his campaign.
As the GOP nominee in 2000, Bush proposed reducing the top marginal tax rate from 39.6 percent to 33 percent. Bush also proposed offering the charitable tax deduction as a non-itemized deduction that would have allowed most low- and middle-income families to deduct charitable donations. (Charitable deductions are offered only to those who itemize their taxes, which is usually a tax decision that is utilized by upper- and middle-income families.)
Instead of lowering the top marginal rate to 33 percent, Congress lowered it to 35 percent, and it never passed the charitable deduction measure. Additionally, the tax cuts included provisions never offered by Bush on the campaign trail, including a reduction in capital gains and dividend taxes.
Summers knows that Trump’s tax plan is merely an ideological blueprint for Congress to follow — a mandate to implement a large tax cut. However, the exact provisions and the overall size of the tax cut must accommodate the wishes of Congress, too.
2. Tax cuts strengthen and grow the economy, not weaken it
Summers follows up with yet more typical, liberal talking points:
The proposals from the presidential campaign … will massively favour the top 1 percent of income earners, threaten an explosive rise in federal debt, complicate the tax code and do little if anything to spur growth.
There’s one big problem with this statement: It reeks of hypocrisy. Summers can complain all he wants about tax cuts, but that doesn’t change the fact that as President Obama’s economic adviser, Summers was responsible for facilitating a massive stimulus program in 2009, which included $211 billion in tax cuts.
Also, since when has a liberal worried about the debt? Summers oversaw Obama’s economic policies that added $9.3 trillion to the debt — more than the combined debts of the previous 43 presidents.
Furthermore, Summers’ narrative contradicts economic studies published by other mainstream liberal economists. For example, Obama’s first chief economic adviser, Dr. Christina Romer, published an academic paper, which found a positive correlation between tax cuts and “very large and persistent positive output effects.”
The prevailing view that people know how to allocate capital in an economy — i.e., handle their own money — better than the government is shared by more than just academics. In fact, the most famous Democrat of the 20th century, John F. Kennedy, was a constant champion of tax reductions to grow the economy.
Economist Larry Kudlow writes in RealClearPolitics.com, “Fifty-four years ago, at The Economic Club of New York, President John F. Kennedy unveiled a dramatic tax cut plan to revive the long-stagnant U.S. economy.” Quoting from Kennedy’s speech, “In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues too low, and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.”
As a result, the economy under Kennedy’s tax cuts grew by roughly five percent yearly for nearly eight years. That’s quite the contrast with tax-hike champion, Obama, whose economic growth has averaged 2.1 percent, the fourth lowest since World War II.
3. Upper-income households bear the largest tax burden, not the lower-middle class
Finally, there is the simple intellectual argument about who receives tax cuts. First, tax cut debates are often constructed with the entire tax code in mind. Yet, when Washington talks about tax reform, they are often only focused on one section of the tax code: income taxes.
After all, payroll taxes, which most people pay, provide a dedicated stream of revenue designated for very specific retirement benefits, like Social Security and Medicare. The amount paid in, which is associated with a person’s lifetime salary, is partially correlated to the benefits a person will receive in the future.
But there is little interest in Washington to manipulate the payroll tax. Instead, the debate over tax reform mostly deals with the individual income tax, as well as corporate tax.
Therefore, any tax cut combined with comprehensive tax reform will intrinsically benefit upper-income families. That’s because those individuals — making more than $265,000 per year — pay 88 percent of all federal income taxes. Yet individuals making less than $47,400 don’t pay any federal income tax. In fact, they have a negative tax liability, meaning after accounting for refundable tax credits and deductions, these individuals receive more from the government than they pay in income taxes.
Therefore, Summers knows that any tax cut will simply tax less from the people who make more than $70,000, or in other words, those who pay the bulk of the income taxes. After all, it’s hard to cut income taxes for those far below that average income level since they don’t pay much federal income tax to begin with. In fact, this point only re-enforces the need for tax reform — and tax cuts.
In total, the government is expected to raise $3.421 trillion in taxes in 2017. Of that amount, $1.667 trillion comes from the income tax — nearly 50 percent of all revenues. The individual income tax is the main source of revenue for funding the normal operations of government; the rest is dedicated to specific programs (except for corporate taxes, which are relatively small at $284 billion). Yet the burden of funding our democratic government is increasingly being pushed onto fewer and fewer people.
The message outlined by Summers is nothing new from a liberal ideologue. Summers’ rhetoric is not only misleading, but it is also antithetical to the more important debate. As he acknowledges in his piece, tax reforms:
[C]ould help offset the dramatic increases in inequality that have taken place over a generation, repair a business tax system that globalization has rendered dysfunctional, reduces uncertainty and promote growth.
But the debate must first start with proposals. Summers may not like Trump’s conservative, pro-limited government tax proposal, but the merits of Trump’s plan should be fairly and equally debated so that beneficial compromise or legitimate changes to the plan can materialize. But the skewed commentary in Summers’ op-ed is designed to stymie the discussion — a political vendetta to accomplish nothing but to deliver a loss to Trump and the American people.
The U.S. can’t wait any longer for tax reform; the evidence of the benefits offered are clear. Instead of scoring political points, Summers should join the conversation as an intellectual and help propel tax reform for all Americans. (For more from the author of “3 Reasons Why Larry Summers’ Misleading Attack on Trump’s Tax Plan Doesn’t Add Up” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/income-tax.jpg565849Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-12-07 23:17:472016-12-07 23:17:473 Reasons Why Larry Summers’ Misleading Attack on Trump’s Tax Plan Doesn’t Add Up
