Why the Nation Is Scared of Hillary Clinton

/0 Comments/in , , /by

These are precarious times to be a Republican.

It is inarguably true that America is in desperate need of a conservative president. Voters have waited and waited, and the havoc Trump has wreaked on the party on his path to the nomination may take a while to heal. This was not the 2016 we deserved. It is, however, the one we got.

But why is everyone so scared of a Clinton presidency? Put simply: The reason everyone is so afraid of Hillary is because Congress sucks.

With polls looking unfavorable for Donald Trump, the sense of dread at having to face four years under Hillary’s watch is compounded by the knowledge that these will be another four years of unmitigated defeat and progressive disaster. Clinton will undoubtedly consolidate more power and tip the delicately balanced scales of checks and balances ever more toward the executive branch. After all, that is what progressives do — it’s in their nature to transform institutions and centralize power.

To a large extent, they have succeeded. Americans cannot help look at the presidency as the strongest and most decisive force in government. The founders, of course, had no such intent when they established our system of checks and balances. Congress was created to be the motor of the republic, to set legislative priorities, rein in the president, and reflect most directly the will of the people. But through eons of feebleness and inactivity, its muscle has atrophied.

It didn’t have to be this way. Congressional cowardice and the entire legislative culture of surrender forces Republicans to look at 2016 as their last hope of rebellion. No one can fathom a scenario in which we lose the presidency and still take part in setting the national agenda. If this was a real possibility on the minds of lawmakers, the aura of doom surrounding November 8 would not be quite so palpable.

The American people — despite the demographics, despite the media, despite presidential elections that are increasingly more personality based — have given Republicans control of the house 18 of the last 22 years. Americans clearly want a check on government.

Shortly after his decision not to go to bat to defend Trump’s politically toxic comments about women in 2005, Speaker Ryan, R-Wisc. (F, 51%) held a conference call urging his members to “do what’s best for you in your district.” Politico quoted a source on the call who described the backlash Ryan faced from some congressmen unprepared to cede the race and unable to stomach the notion of spending another presidential term playing defense as saying: “A lot of these guys feel like there is a moral imperative to beating Hillary Clinton.”

In the 115th Congress, elected Republicans once again have a chance to lead. As several recent polls indicate — in light of the favorability of a President Clinton — come 2017, voters will take their cue from leadership as to how brutal a loss this will be. Are we in for another term of untrammeled progressivism and an opposition party eager to show a liberal media and Washington insiders it can be “reasonable” and “bipartisan”? Or will we get the conservative fighters the country deserves? Fighters that can halt the liberal Clinton agenda. Don’t forget, our nation did see conservative reforms during the last Clinton administration when Republicans asserted themselves as a check on the executive.

What will truly make America great again is reviving the most important branch of government, the only one directly tethered to will of the people.

The internet response to recent polling is filled with the terror of another liberal epoch. Republicans must stop being guided by the less awful of two fears.

I’ll say it again: Hillary is especially dangerous because Congress is especially gutless.

Please, GOP: Prove me wrong. (For more from the author of “Why the Nation Is Scared of Hillary Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Drop the Act and Hand Over Your Catholic Card, Tim Kaine

/0 Comments/in , /by

This week vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine, D-Va. (F, 0%) proved once again that the only “ism” he’s interested in defending is progressivism.

Kaine appeared on ABC’s “The View” Thursday, where he was asked to comment on this week’s Wikileaks email dump that exposed the anti-Catholic views of top Clinton campaign officials, as well as the active role of progressive think tanks in promoting antipathy for traditional Church teachings on marriage, contraception, and abortion.

But instead of taking the opportunity to address the content of the emails, Kaine, a self-professed Catholic, pointed the finger at Russia:

“First thing on the WikiLeaks … I mean, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence has said that this is hacking that Russians are behind it, the Russian government is behind it. So, anybody that would hack to try to destabilize an election, you can’t automatically assume that everything in all of these documents … are even real.”

Unlike the Virginia senator, Catholic officials did not hesitate to condemn the contents of the leaked emails — as well as the Clinton campaign’s refusal to do so — the Catholic Herald reported.

Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput called the emails “contemptuously anti-Catholic.” On Thursday, the diocesan website posted a column by Archbishop Chaput: “About Those Unthinking, Backward Catholics.”

“Of course it would be wonderful for the Clinton campaign to repudiate the content of these ugly WikiLeaks emails,” he writes. “All of us backward-thinking Catholics who actually believe what Scripture and the Church teach would be so very grateful.”’

Louisville Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, also released a statement in which he called the Clinton campaign emails “troubling both for the wellbeing of faith communities and the good of our country”:

“I encourage my fellow Catholic brothers and sisters, and all people of good will, to be good stewards of the precious rights we have inherited as citizens of this country. We also expect public officials to respect the rights of people to live their faith without interference from the state. When faith communities lose this right, the very idea of what it means to be an American is lost.”

Speaking on “The View” Thursday, Kaine made his case for why voters should trust the Clinton-Kaine ticket despite the leaks:

“The best way to tell about the character of somebody in public life, in my view, is to look and see, do they have a passion that showed up before they were in public life? Something that animates and drives them. And then, have they held onto that passion throughout their life?”

He went on to say that Hillary Clinton has proven herself trustworthy for the Oval Office by displaying a life-long passion for “empowering families and kids.”

Well, we all know about Hillary’s so-called “pro-family” track record, and it’s certainly not compatible with Catholic doctrine. Like Clinton, Kaine has proven time and time again that he, too, holds a “public and private position” when it comes to policy. And judging by his own standards, Kaine’s passion for pushing the progressive Leftist agenda is far stronger than his so-called Catholic values. (For more from the author of “Drop the Act and Hand Over Your Catholic Card, Tim Kaine” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Seven Things the Donald Trump Wrecking Ball Has Exposed in Our Culture

/0 Comments/in , /by

It was former governor Jeb Bush who first referred to Donald Trump as the “chaos candidate.” Now, Lance Wallnau, an out-of-the-box Christian thinker and businessman, has dubbed Trump “God’s chaos candidate,” writing a book by this title (with the subtitle, “Donald J. Trump and the American Unraveling”).

Wallnau believes that God is using Trump as a “wrecking ball to the spirit of political correctness,” claiming, “His emergence is such a destabilizing threat to the vast deal making machinery embedded in both parties that he has the unique distinction of being rejected by both liberal Democrats and establishment Republicans at the same time.”

Whether Wallnau is right in all of his beliefs remains to be seen (I’m scheduled to interview him next Wednesday, October 19, live, from 2-3 PM, EST, and I’ll be sure to ask him lots of probing questions, since he strongly supports Trump for president), but what is clear to me is that God is using Trump as a wrecking ball of sorts, and the results are not pretty.

What has this human wrecking ball helped expose?

1) Trump has helped to expose the carnality of the culture.

It was Donald Trump who initially delighted his crowds by dropping F- bombs, and it is Donald Trump whose borderline profane tweets ignite his followers today. The crasser, the better!

But Trump is not alone in his carnality. His words and actions have encouraged his supporters to engage in the most profane rhetoric, as they not only defend him but also feel empowered by his example.

2) Trump has helped to expose the superficiality of the culture.

Candidate Trump remains a reality TV star, and much of his political appeal is tied to his rock star status.

To be sure, candidate Obama took on rock star status during his first presidential campaign, but as undeserved as Obama’s stardom was, it had a very different feel than the stardom of Trump. That’s why I wrote back in May that he was “a National Enquirer candidate for a Jerry Springer generation.”

Now, in saying this, I do not mean that Trump has not struck a chord with many Americans, for whom he has provided a voice, and I don’t mean that people are not voting for him because of his policies. I simply mean that his candidacy has helped bring our superficiality to the surface.

3) Trump has helped to expose the vulgarity of our culture.

Forget about the release of the 2005 videotape with Trump’s horrific comments about women. That’s news from 11 years ago.

We’re talking about the candidate who boasted about the size of his manhood during a debate in the primaries.

And now, with his opponent’s husband being an even easier target, the most recent presidential debate (I use the term “presidential” with hesitation) degenerated into rhetoric like, “Yeah, what I said was bad, but what he did was even worse.”

The other day, I spent a few seconds browsing the Drudge Report and then the Huffington Post, in both cases just looking at the most prominent headlines, after which I felt like I needed to take a shower to get the dirt and grime off of me. These websites were absolutely in the gutter.

Does anyone think that if the battle for the White House was between, say, Jeb Bush and Bernie Sanders, that the headlines would be as vulgar and debased? (And yes, on Drudge, there are now accusations of impropriety directed against President Obama as well.)

4) Trump has helped to expose an unhealthy nationalism.

I certainly recognize that many Americans are deeply upset with the direction of our nation (for good reason), and Trump has appealed to their frustration and anger, promising to turn the ship around.

But Trump has also helped stir up an almost rabid, America-first nationalism (whether intentionally or not), one that can easily lead to xenophobia, racism, and more, one that feeds on these very attitudes and mindsets. In keeping with this, a White Supremacist website claimed that it was “the Jews” who were behind the release of the damning 2005 video tape.

I am not connecting Trump with this website (obviously) and I am not stating that he himself is a racist or a xenophobe. I’m simply saying that his campaign has caused these sentiments to surface with a vengeance.

5) Trump has helped to expose the corruption of the political system.

There are many Christians who feel that the Hillary vs. Trump presidential race is a sure sign of divine judgment on America, as if God is giving us over to our foolishness.

At the same time, Trump’s refusal to play the standard political game has helped reveal the power of the political establishment, both Republican and Democrat, and with that, the corruption of the political establishment. Will we ever look at these parties in the same way again?

6) Trump has helped to expose the massive divisions among evangelicals.

This is not just a matter of a difference of opinion. It is a matter of one evangelical leader claiming that any Christian who votes for Trump is guilty of idolatry and another evangelical leader claiming that any Christian who does not vote for Trump will be held accountable by God and will have the blood of the unborn on his or her hands.

One group asks, “As a Christian, how can you possibly vote for such a narcissitic, proud, vulgar, potty-mouthed, short-tempered, inexperienced man who is absolutely unfit for the presidency?”

The other group responds, “As a Christian, how can you not vote against Hillary Clinton and how can you not recognize that we’re not electing a Pastor in Chief but a Commander in Chief? God is raising up Trump!”

Again, I’m not blaming Donald Trump for these divisions (and I’ve barely scratched the surface in detailing them). To the contrary, these divisions were already there (even down to the meaning of “evangelical”); Trump’s presidential run has just helped to reveal them.

7) Trump has helped to expose the collusion of the liberal media with the Democrat Party.

I don’t doubt for a moment that if Ted Cruz was the Republican candidate, the liberal media would be doing everything in its power to bring him down, and this would have been true 10 years ago (and longer) as well as today.

But it appears that the media that gave Trump endless, free time on its networks during the primaries is the same media now seeking to bring him down, lending credence to the allegation that the liberal networks (at least some of them) helped prop Trump up during the primaries because he would be the easiest target to bring down in the general election.

Whether or not this is true, the media’s radical liberal bias and pro-Hillary sentiments cannot be denied, to the point of almost being shouted out by the moderators during the presidential debates. Or should we think nothing of a moderator arguing a policy position with Trump, as if he was debating her (Martha Raddatz) rather than Hillary?

The bottom line for me is simple, regardless of who you plan to vote for (and I don’t write this to discourage a vote for Trump): God has used Trump to expose a lot of what is wrong with America, and it is not a pretty sight. (For more from the author of “Seven Things the Donald Trump Wrecking Ball Has Exposed in Our Culture” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Recent Polling Proves That LGBT ‘Non-Discrimination’ Laws Are Completely Unnecessary

/0 Comments/in , /by

A new survey finds that an increasing number of Americans support a federal “non-discrimination” law that includes sexual orientation and gender identity provisions.

The “2016 Out & Equal Workplace Survey” — conducted by The Harris Poll in conjunction with Out & Equal Workplace Advocates and Witeck Communications — surveyed 2,223 adults about their views on LGBT issues in the workplace. The Harris Poll notes that there is an over-sample of gay and lesbian adults included in the sample.

What it found was that 67 percent of Americans support federal law that “prohibits discrimination in employment, public accommodations, housing and credit” on the basis of sexual attraction or perceived gender.

While some will see this and wonder why these laws don’t exist, the numbers actually show why Americans don’t need these so-called “SOGI [Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity] laws.”

Last week, in response to a grossly misleading video segment about North Carolina’s HB2 “bathroom bill” on “The Daily Show with Trever Noah” — where two guys rent a food truck in the Tarheel State to deny service to people just because they can — Reason.com’s Scott Shackford addressed the absurdity of some claims made by the Left in regard to the so-called “permission to discriminate,” and the misnomer that it represents:

The possibility of this kind of discrimination has been around all along because it hadn’t been forbidden. The segment also incorrectly states that discrimination against LGBT people in the state will be legal for as long as HB2 is on the books. It will remain legal even if HB2 is repealed (at least on the state level) because, again, sexual orientation and gender identity are not considered protected classes by the state.

With this reality, the two men in the “Daily Show” segment had to create their own scenario to prove what could happen — rather than an actual reflection of circumstances.

“If there were a serious, widespread problem with discrimination against gay people, they wouldn’t have had to set up a fake food truck, would they?” Schackford continues, arguing any actual discriminators would have been caught and shame-filmed.

“But they didn’t. They had to fabricate a Seinfeldian Soup Nazi-style environment to try to present an exaggerated possibility […] Yes, discrimination exists, but there is no widespread conspiracy to exclude gay and transgender people, and there is so much more cultural pressure that can resolve it positively without getting the state involved.”

And the same is true of the calls for federal non-discrimination orders. There is no majority effort or a massive cultural push to keep people out of jobs, housing or health care simply because of sexual orientation or issues of gender identity. If there were, you can guarantee that such instances would get just as much (if not more) hyped mainstream media coverage as police-involved shootings.

If a business were to actually fire someone for being gay anywhere in America, we need not try too hard to imagine the witch hunt that would ensue.

Take, for example, the case of Brendan Eich, who was effectively forced to resign from his Mozilla CEO post in 2014 for donating a paltry $1,000 to a pro-natural marriage cause six years before. Or Memories Pizza in Indiana that had to close down as its owners went into hiding during the RFRA fight last spring from arson and death threats. The pizza shop owners’ crime? Saying they hypothetically wouldn’t cater a same-sex wedding ceremony.

And, going back to North Carolina’s HB2, 72 percent of respondents in the 2016 Out & Equal Workplace Survey said they were more likely to buy from businesses that opposed the law.

Whether these trends are good for the wellbeing of American society, the natural family, or human ecology as a whole is one thing. What they do show is just how unnecessary government involvement is.

These kinds of SOGI laws that people say they’re in favor of are what Alliance Defending Freedom’s James Gottry calls “a subversive response to a nonexistent problem.”

Discrimination against these populations is not significant, Gottry says, because the vast majority of Americans already respect each other and “because anyone engaged in baseless discrimination faces the prospect of social and financial consequences brought on by public pressure and boycotts.”

“SOGI laws,” Gottry counters, “use the full force of the law to punish individuals who seek to live peacefully and to work in a way that is consistent with their consciences.” And we’ve seen this time and time again as these sorts of ordinances have endangered or destroyed the livelihoods of people across America — whether bakers in Oregon, a photographer in Arizona, or a florist in Washington, or countless others.

In light of these conditions, federal statutes like the Equality Act and both prior manifestations of Employment Non-Discrimination Act would function not as a seawall against widespread discrimination against gays and transgendered people, like their advocates would argue. Rather, they would function but as heavy mallets to crush whatever conscientious objection still remains to our hypersexualized, hyper-sensitized culture.

Using federal-government hammers to bash any and all dissenters out of the market and public square is not the habit of people in a truly free society. While most Americans have the best intentions in their support for SOGI laws, asking the government to mandate “equality” in this case is little more than further legitimizing anti-conscientious government tyranny. (For more from the author of “Why Recent Polling Proves That LGBT ‘Non-Discrimination’ Laws Are Completely Unnecessary” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why This Judge’s Showdown Over Same-Sex Marriage Could Mean Big Trouble for the Future of Federalism

/0 Comments/in , /by

Alabama’s Chief Justice was suspended from the bench for upholding state law in the face of the Supreme Court’s 2015, 5-4 decision about same sex marriage. Now, thanks to the actions of an unelected commission, he’s stuck in limbo with no source of income, but it doesn’t stop there.

The most troubling part of all this, says his lawyer, are what it could mean for judge in America who issues a legal opinion that deviates from the Supreme Court’s line.

The case of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, and his suspension over a gay marriage order, has “startling implications” for judges around the country, his attorney states.

“The implications of a judicial inquiry commission targeting a judge for a legal opinion is quite startling,” says Liberty Council founder and chairman Mat Staver.

“That means that every dissenting, majority, or concurring opinion is fertile ground for a judicial inquiry body to go after. And if they don’t agree with the legal body or the legal conclusions or the legal reasoning, the judge who wrote it could be disciplined or removed from the bench.”

Stemming from complaints by the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center, Moore was suspended on Sept. 30 for the remainder of his term on the Alabama Supreme Court after a state judicial body found him guilty of six charges of violation of the canons of judicial ethics.

“This decision clearly reflects the corrupt nature of our political and legal system at the highest level,” read a statement by Moore, who is currently appealing the verdict.

While the case against the suspended chief justice portrayed him acting in defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court, the contention is primarily over his administrative order to the state’s 68 probate judges in January regarding same-sex marriage licenses. Moore told the judges that a previous order from March 2015 — preceding the Obergefell v. Hodges decision — was still in place and, as such, prevented the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses.

“After the Attorney General of Alabama declined to prosecute this case, the JIC [Judicial Inquiry Committee] employed the former legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) which filed the charges against me, at a cost of up to $75,000.00 to the taxpayers of Alabama,” Moore’s statement continued.

“This was a politically motivated effort by radical homosexual and transgender groups to remove me as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because of outspoken opposition to their immoral agenda.”

While the JIC found Moore guilty of ethics charges for defying federal court orders, he and his lawyer contend that he was simply following the judicial canons, which state that administrative orders like the one under contention from 2015 are under the sole authority of the Alabama Supreme Court.

“Administrative orders are under the authority of the Alabama Supreme Court,” Staver explained to Conservative Review in a phone interview Tuesday. “So if a Chief Justice ever issues an administrative order that is not in compliance with the law, or that the other justices disagree with, the body of authority over it is not the JIC, it’s the Alabama Supreme Court. They can convene and overrule it.”

“This is the first time that someone has been disciplined for a legal opinion,” said Staver. “Their prerogative is looking at facts and the actions of a judge to determine whether or not those violate the law. It is not for them to evaluate the legal opinions of a judge to determine whether or not case law supports or are in opposition to it.”

“That’s how it’s supposed to work,” he said. “It’s unprecedented that the JIC got into the meaning of this administrative order, because it’s a legal matter … There’s no factual dispute here. There’s no act that [Moore] did. It’s just a four-page administrative order.”

“Whenever a charge is issued by the JIC in Alabama, the judge is automatically removed, pending the entire process before you ever get a chance to defend yourself,” Staver explained. “You’re fighting to get back,” as opposed most states require proof of guilt for anything less than a felony indictment to remove, suspend, or reprimand a judge.

“The process is the punishment,” Staver concluded. “A bad charge can automatically remove somebody. And even if the charge is proven to be erroneous, you’re months removed from the bench and the damage is done.”

And Roy Moore is feeling the squeeze right now. Moore’s suspension was even worse than removal in many ways, according to Staver, who says that his client now can’t even practice privately, retire, or draw his retirement benefits, as the suspension is for the remainder of his term, ending in 2019. As of right now, Staver told Conservative Review, the 69-year-old Moore has even been cut off from his previous health plan as a result of the suspension.

“For the next two-and-a-half years, he has no income, no insurance benefits, no approval of retirement … cannot work. So he’s in a horrible situation,” he said. “It’s a horrible situation.” (For more from the author of “Why This Judge’s Showdown Over Same-Sex Marriage Could Mean Big Trouble for the Future of Federalism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Can Someone Finally Put the ‘Clinton Surplus’ and ‘Gun Show Loophole’ Myths to Rest

/0 Comments/in , /by

There are some liberal myths that (like a bad case of athlete’s foot) just refuse to go away. Ironically, these myths are easily refuted with a simple internet search, but liberals rarely let facts get in the way of a good talking point. The latest reappearance of these liberal fairytales was in the recent second presidential debate. Hillary Clinton, who is smart enough to know that these myths are about authentic as tales of alien encounters at an LSD convention, insisted on using these myths in the last debate. To me, that means that she either lied or she isn’t as smart as her supporters claim.

Myth #1 “The Clinton Surplus”

I’ve debunked this myth before in my writings here at Conservative Review, but like that foot fungus, or Jason from the Friday the 13th movies, it keeps coming back. Now, again, for the umpteenth time THERE WAS NO BUDGET SURPLUS IN THE CLINTON YEARS. Can I be candid here? If you believe that President Bill Clinton’s presidency ran a surplus in any year where he occupied the White House then 1) you don’t know what you’re talking about 2) you do know what you’re talking about and you’re lying 3) you aren’t interested in anything other than protecting the Democrat “brand.”

Here’s a simple way to debunk the myth that President Clinton ran a surplus that even liberals who choose to blind themselves like Oedipus can understand (if they choose to understand). The national debt (the accumulated debt resulting from annual federal budget deficits) rose EVERY YEAR Bill Clinton was in office. Questioning me because I’m a conservative and you think I’m shilling for the GOP? Then please go to the Department of the Treasury’s own website by clicking here and plug in the Clinton years. Voila! The national debt increased every year which, by using uncomplicated logic, must mean that Bill Clinton added to the national debt every year by running budget deficits, not surpluses. If you are interested in additional details on the many scams the liberals and their media chums employ to keep this myth going then please read this excellent article by Craig Steiner which demolishes every single liberal “Clinton surplus” scam.

Myth #2 “The Gun Show Loophole”

This liberal myth most likely originated in a liberal focus group where the goal was to fabricate terminology to mislead voters regarding access to firearms. There is NO gun show loophole. It doesn’t exist. Yes, that’s right, it’s completely made up and people using this talking point must not know that they sound ridiculous when they bring it up, Hillary included.

People who use this debunked, nonsensical, talking point are similar to that really loud guy at a small, intimate house party that’s talking loud enough for everyone to hear, and telling stories about his high school football days that absolutely no one cares about. He looks ridiculous but he’s the only one who doesn’t know it. If you go to a gun show and ask a federally licensed firearms dealer to bypass the background check citing the “gun show loophole” you will likely be thrown out or, at a minimum, you will be sternly corrected. Again, don’t believe me, then check out this terrific video by Steven Crowder in which he humorously tries to use the “gun show loophole” to speed up the gun buying process. In short, some private sales and transfers or firearms, do not require a NICS check. But, this has nothing to do with a gun show and EVERY licensed federal firearms dealer at a gun show must, by law, conduct a background check. Saying otherwise makes you look silly, or it makes you a died-in-the-wool liberal, but I just said the same thing twice. (For more from the author of “Can Someone Finally Put the ‘Clinton Surplus’ and ‘Gun Show Loophole’ Myths to Rest” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Win or Lose This November, Mike Pence Has a Bright Future Ahead of Him

/0 Comments/in , /by

Donald Trump is famous for his rhetorical aggression, his lack of harmony in speech, and his often controversial comments. Since he’s stepped into the arena of presidential politics, Trump has been the antithesis of political correctness — and proudly so.

Yet, every seemingly misspoken sentence has left Trump unscathed thus far. It was only days ago that Trump and Clinton were neck and neck in the polls in the battle for the White House. Unfortunately for Trump, it may not be his campaign rhetoric that tanks his bid for the Oval Office. Instead, the breaking point may be the newly released tape, more than a decade old, that records Trump using particularly vulgar language toward women.

Time will tell, or actually, the election for that matter, if Trump’s comments will be the nail in his presidential coffin. However, the man truly stuck in the middle is Governor Mike Pence, Trump’s running mate. Although, Pence unequivocally denounced Trump’s remarks, many in the conservative movement speculate that Trump’s character could curse Pence’s own future ambitions.

My assumption, however, is that those pundits are merely being dramatic or using it as a scare tactic to push Pence to quit the campaign. Whether you support Trump, never did, or have changed your decision after the latest bombshell, one thing remains certain: Mike Pence is no Donald Trump.

In fact, there is really no comparison. If anything, that’s what has made Pence a worthy vice presidential candidate. Trump has been a lifelong businessman, often times with varying political opinions. He occasionally appears readily religious and situationally conservative. I hope that Trump’s positions today are genuine. Still, as a non-politician without a voting record, we have only his word to go on.

Pence, on the other hand, has a long and documented political history, including a record in both Congress and as governor of Indiana. In Congress, he put his money where his mouth is: He rebuked his own party by voting against No Child Left Behind in 2001, he opposed a major entitlement expansion of Medicare in 2003, and he routinely voted against every notable government bailout, including Wall Street’s (TARP).

As a staff member for then-Congressman Pence in 2010, I know from personal experience that he was often guided in life and politics by his faith. Few members of Congress hewed so closely to their faith in God to guide day-to-day decisions.

Ironically, the second debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump proved that Pence is much more than simply an extension of Trump. While they are known to disagree on a plethora of topics (trade and a ban on Muslims are just two examples), the distinction between the men was brought to the fore on Sunday night, when Trump nearly had to rebuke his own running mate on stage. Martha Raddatz questioned Trump’s interaction with Russia saying, “Pence at last week’s vice presidential debate said that ‘provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength.’” Trump quickly rebutted, “He and I haven’t spoken, and I disagree.” In this race, it is clear that Pence is his own man.

More so, Pence may be the best conservative option — with one of the best conservative résumés — in future elections. Aside from fighting in Congress for balanced budgets, tax cuts, and reducing the size of government, Pence has one of the most conservative records as governor.

As The Wall Street Journal highlights, his economic record in Indiana is impressive. In Indiana, economic growth matched or exceeded the national average. Job creation grew by 10 percent since 2012 in the state versus only 6.5 percent in the US. He alone expanded manufacturing jobs by more than 30,000.

Most impressively, Pence balanced the budget each and every year — while cutting taxes. He reduced income taxes, corporate taxes, personal property taxes and repealed the estate tax. And he did this all while keeping government spending below the rate of inflation.

Few can match Pence’s résumé.

That’s because Pence is his own man, and regardless of how this election turns out, any opportunity for a 2020 run will not be shattered by his decision to run with Trump. Pence is not running for power or prestige, but as a principled individual with conservative convictions. That passion was immediately apparent in his amazing performance during the first and only vice presidential debate. Even The Boston Globe agreed that Pence appeared presidential.

Like many before Pence, this vice presidential run will not be his legacy. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. (F, 51%), for example, is now Speaker of the House. Pence has a bright future ahead of him — whether he’s working in the White House come January or not. (For more from the author of “Win or Lose This November, Mike Pence Has a Bright Future Ahead of Him” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

3 Ways to Use the Presidential Debate to Talk Taxes

/0 Comments/in , /by

With the leak of Donald Trump’s tax records by The New York Times, and following round two of the presidential debates in which both candidates spoke about their tax plans, taxes are in the news to stay.

But like its code, taxes are complicated. There’s the corporate tax rate, the sales tax, personal income tax, and loopholes to apply. The likelihood anyone does their own taxes without the help of an online program or accountant is low. Ain’t nobody got time for that, even if they could figure it out.

Starting today, and over the next few months, tax reform will be a hot topic to discuss with neighbors, family, friends, and co-workers. So where do you begin, and what angle provides the best argument for tax reform?

Here’s how to break it down.

Common Ground

It’s a pretty safe bet that most people agree: 1) we should all pay our fair share, but 2) the current tax system is difficult to understand. Too many loopholes exist that authorize some to legally circumvent a hefty payment or pay nothing at all. It’s not fair, but reform can make it fair; transparency works wonders.

Even though there is an argument to be made for private vs. public management, taxes fund services we use every day—think infrastructure, public transportation, etc. If we have to pay our fair share to ensure these services continue, we’d appreciate if our neighbor pays his fair share too. Removing the loopholes and simplifying the tax code achieves this end.

So, start with “we’re in this together.”

Examples

If we agree that all should pay their fair share, then the simplification of the tax code will better guarantee that happens. It will also reduce costs for families and small businesses.

The Daily Signal reported in August on how much money people have to pay just to file their taxes. The code is so complicated that a ridiculous amount of time and money is spent before the check is written to the state and/or federal governments. As the article notes: “Tax complexity is a charge on a charge.” What?

If that seems absurd, it’s because it is. Think of the possibilities if the time and money spent just to file taxes were eliminated with a simpler tax code—job creation! And other worthy endeavors. A bad tax system—unfair, complicated—decreases opportunity.

The Daily Signal also points out that the United States suffers from the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. We’re ranked 154 of 178 in reference to “fiscal freedom.”

Let’s talk Burger King. Not many in the media were reporting on the corporate tax rate at the time—and even fewer Americans had been paying attention—but in 2014, Burger King made an announcement that it was planning to move its headquarters to Canada because the corporate tax rate was lower. I repeat, Burger King left the U.S. for Canada in order to pay lower taxes. (A little-known fact: The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world—higher than France!)

That caught the attention of the media and nearly every good, burger-loving American. All of a sudden, the corporate tax rate was in the news because everyone knows Burger King and nothing is more American than a burger!

Words

In addition to using words like “fair” and “simple” to describe the tax reform you want, be mindful of the phrases you choose to frame your argument.

For example, the “estate tax.” This is the technical name for the onerous federal tax levied against the property or business of someone who has just died, before the inheritance is passed on to the heirs. However, the term “estate tax” sounds regal and out of touch. If you want to illicit an emotional response (and better describe the tax), use “death tax.”

And if you ever get hit with the 99 percent argument? I often say: “The rich can afford to pay more, but you know who can’t? Everyone else. The more money the rich have to give to Uncle Sam, the more they have to downsize, which often leads to fewer jobs for you and me. It’s a losing situation.”

Taxes are tricky, both to pay and talk about. But hopefully the common ground, examples, and the right words/phrases outlined are a great starting point to make an argument for tax reform. Keep it simple, and we’ll cross our fingers that the tax code will soon follow suit. (For more from the author of “3 Ways to Use the Presidential Debate to Talk Taxes” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This One Tweet Shows Why You Can’t Trust Media ‘Fact Checkers’

/0 Comments/in , , /by

In the wake of another debate, the self-appointed media fact checkers are at it again. Instead of fact checking, they often dispense opinions packaged as facts, and in some cases outright obfuscate on behalf of Democrats. NBC gave America a textbook case of the latter last night.

During the second presidential debate, Trump explained how, after a congressional subpoena, Clinton’s team had her server deleted of emails. During the exchange Trump made a metaphorical reference to Clinton wiping the server clean. NBC News, hilariously tried to fact check that.

The Claim

Trump says Clinton ‘acid washed’ her email server.

The Truth

Clinton’s team used an app called BleachBit; she did not use a corrosive chemical.

NBC rated the claim a “NOPE.”

This was not satire; they actually did this. What makes it more outrageous is Trump, in the same sentence, used the prhase “Bleach them.” Here’s the exchange as transcribed by the Washington Post.

When I speak, I go out and speak, the people of this country are furious. In my opinion, the people that have been long-term workers at the FBI are furious. There has never been anything like this, where e-mails — and you get a subpoena, you get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena, you delete 33,000 e-mails, and then you acid wash them or bleach them, as you would say, very expensive process.

Two words after ‘acid wash’ Trump said ‘bleach them,’ which was an obvious reference to the computer program (not an app but that’s an aside) BleachBit.

It is noteworthy that NBC News did not try to fact check whether or not the underlying premise —that Hillary Clinton deleted emails after getting a subpoena — is true. Because it is. Morther Jones, not exactly a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, reported what the FBI report had to say about the emails (emphasis mine).

Pages 18-19: According to Mills, in December 2014, Clinton decided she no longer needed access to any of her e-mails older than 60 days. […] On March 2, 2015, The New York Times (NYT) published an article titled “Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules.” […] In his interviews with the FBI, REDACTED [a PRN techie] indicated that sometime between March 25-31, 2015, he realized he did not make the e-mail retention policy changes to Clinton’s clintonemail.com e-mail account that Mills had requested in December 2014. […] He believed he had an “oh shit” moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton’s e-mails.

This explains why data was removed from the PRN server after the New York Times article and after the Benghazi committee had subpoenaed Hillary’s emails. It had nothing to do with anyone around Hillary Clinton. An IT guy at PRN realized one day that he’d forgotten about the retention order and went ahead and implemented it.

The report makes clear that Cheryl Mills sent an email, which the PRN techie received, telling PRN about the preservation request from the Benghazi committee. The techie said he knew it meant he shouldn’t disturb the Clinton server but apparently got confused and didn’t realize this meant he shouldn’t touch the old archives or the backups.

What is not being questioned is whether or Clinton’s team deleted the emails after the subpoena. It is established fact. By rating Trump as false — or in this case ‘NOPE’ – NBC News is intentionally misleading the public.

Remember when you read a “fact check” do some digging on your own, no matter who is providing the “facts.” (For more from the author of “This One Tweet Shows Why You Can’t Trust Media ‘Fact Checkers'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why All the Fuss Over the Trump Sex-Comments Tape?

/0 Comments/in , /by

I’m not writing this to defend Donald Trump or to minimize the despicable nature of his comments captured on video in 2005. Not a chance.

Nor am I writing this to convince NeverTrumpers to vote for him.

My own wife, Nancy, has told me repeatedly that she could not vote for him, despite the possibility of Hillary getting elected. (Of course, she will not vote for Hillary either.)

Instead, I’m writing this to ask those who once supported Trump, like my highly esteemed, Christian brother Wayne Grudem, a fellow-professor and theologian, why the video tape changed things.

Prof. Grudem wrote, “There is no morally good presidential candidate in this election. I previously called Donald Trump a ‘good candidate with flaws’ and a ‘flawed candidate’ but I now regret that I did not more strongly condemn his moral character. I cannot commend Trump’s moral character, and I strongly urge him to withdraw from the election.”

Certainly, I commend Prof. Grudem for his integrity and for acknowledging what he now feels was an erroneous endorsement of Trump. In fact, just a few days ago, I wrote a piece questioning whether I will endorse another candidate in the future, having previously endorsed Sen. Cruz.

But my issue is simply this: Why the surprise now? Did anyone really think the tape misrepresented who he was in 2005 and who he likely continued to be.? Did any of us think that he didn’t sexualize women, that he didn’t lean into his star power, that he didn’t boast about his many (alleged) sexual trysts? Why the outrage and shock now?

Even if Trump changed in certain ways since 2005 — perhaps he has been more faithful to Melania and more involved with their kids — the character he displayed throughout the election process indicated some very deep, moral flaws, making him the least likely poster boy for the evangelical right.

During the primaries, I issued numerous words of warning and concern about Donald Trump, in writing, on radio, and on video, also making clear that these warnings were in the context of the primaries, when we had other, more viable candidates for president. (Obviously, this was simply my opinion.)

Once it came to Trump vs. Hillary, my posture has been that I cannot vote for Hillary but that Trump could earn my vote, and that remains my position until today.

I would like to be able to vote for him, and I do hope that he will heed the godly advice that is being given to him and learn to humble himself before God and people. But his failings and flaws are such that I still have concerns about helping to elect him as president, despite the dire possibility of a Hillary presidency.

But these are just my personal opinions, and I do not write this to persuade or to influence. My purpose in writing is to ask those who once backed Trump but do so no longer: Why the surprise at his past conduct? Weren’t his weaknesses and flaws shouting aloud to the nation over the last year via tweet and spoken word?

I never for a moment bought into the “Saint Donald” rhetoric, questioning other Christian leaders who embraced him as such. (I don’t mean to deny that he has helped people privately and has a compassionate, caring side. I simply mean that to present him as a wonderfully Christian man is to be self-deceived.)

And I understand the convictions of the NeverTrumpers, although I have never identified with this group. (I once used the hashtag in a tweet but decided not to do so again.)

My issue is with the political leaders and Christian leaders who endorsed Donald Trump and who worked to help elect him but are now distancing themselves from him in shock and dismay. Who did you think you were dealing with?

I know he can be gracious and humble in person, and there are surely many positive qualities about him.

But if you’re going to endorse him, do so with your eyes wide open, or don’t endorse him at all.

The man who once boasted about his adulterous encounters with famous women and who opened a casino with a massive strip club inside but felt he didn’t need to ask God for forgiveness is the man you endorsed for president.

Had he renounced with shame his past life, that would be one thing.

Had he not insulted and degraded his political opponents (and other perceived opponents) in the most vile and cruel ways, crushing them at any cost so that he could advance politically, that would be one thing as well.

But he did not renounce his past or change his public ways, because of which, the only issue with the 2005 tape should not have been the tape itself but rather how he responded to it today.

I have colleagues who believe that God is raising up Trump the way He raised up Cyrus, pointing out that Cyrus was used by the Lord although he was a pagan king who did not know the God of Israel (see Isaiah 45:1-6, and note carefully the phrase “although you do not know Me” in v. 5-6).

I have no problem with this concept at all. As the old saying goes, let God be God (in other words, let Him do what He chooses to do in His way and for His purposes). So be it. As I’ve written before, I personally hope it’s true.

But for those who are having cold feet about Trump now, I ask again: Wasn’t it clear from day one that this was the man you were endorsing?

For all of us, then, from here on in, the lesson is simple and clear: Whatever we do, let’s do it with our eyes wide open and with our trust in God alone. (For more from the author of “Why All the Fuss Over the Trump Sex-Comments Tape?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.