We Are Peacemakers — Not Troublemakers

/0 Comments/in , /by

It is true that, as followers of Jesus, we will be hated and rejected just as He was (Matthew 10:24-25; John 15:18-20). And it is true that many of our words and deeds will be unpopular, as we speak truth to power, as we stand for justice, as we expose unrighteousness, we call people to repentance, and as we confront the corrupt status quo.

This is what happened to the prophets of old when they called their people to account, and this is what will happen to us as we follow in their footsteps today (Matthew 5:10-12).

But that doesn’t mean that we are troublemakers or agitators; instead, we are called to be peacemakers and ambassadors of reconciliation (Matthew 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:18-20).

It is true that our message will divide people, as Jesus told us long ago (Matthew 10:34-37), but our goal is not to divide people but rather to call them together, to build bridges rather than tear them down.

I’m quite aware that, in the Book of Acts, the disciples were often accused of being rabble rousers who stirred up dissension and conflict.

In Acts 16 Paul and Silas were accused of throwing the city of Philippi into an uproar; in Acts 17 the disciples were referred to as those who were turning the whole world upside down; in Acts 21 Paul was mistaken for the leader of a violent revolution; and in Acts 24 he was accused of being a troublemaker (literally, a pestilence), stirring up riots in city after city.

And in 2 Timothy 3:12, after describing his long history of being persecuted for the faith, Paul told Timothy, “In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” In other words, “Timothy, I’m not the only one who is going to be persecuted!”

But reality is that Paul was neither a troublemaker nor the leader of a violent revolutionary movement, although he certainly was a leader in a revolutionary movement — the Jesus movement, the most revolutionary movement of all time, not simply in its call for radical change but also in its methods, overcoming evil with good and conquering hatred with love.

As noted by Christian teacher H. S. Vigeveno, “Our world has witnessed many a revolution, but none as effective as the one that divided history into B.C. and A.D … Revolutionary, indeed, this mission, to begin with a cross and sway the whole world through suffering love.”

Revolutionary, indeed!

Do we dare seek to live it out?

Do we dare seek to follow the Jesus model of laying down our lives for others and of loving our own enemies?

Can we find a way to have hearts of compassion joined with backbones of steel, to mingle grace together with truth, to be both caring and courageous?

Can we learn to confront unrighteousness without becoming unruly? Can we stand up for justice without provoking people to carnal rage?

Followers of Jesus may challenge the sinful status quo but our words and deeds will never lead to looting or violence or riots.

Instead, we urge people to put down their sword (which means renouncing acts of lawlessness and violence) and pick up their cross (which means death to our fleshly desires and self-will).

That is how we change the world, and that is how we live out our calling to peacemakers and reconcilers and bridge builders. We are a movement, not a mob.

In the words of Vernon Grounds, former Chancellor of Denver Theological Seminary, “A Christian who … becomes a revolutionary will serve as a revolutionary catalyst in the Church; and by the multiplication of revolutionized Christians, the Church will become a revolutionary catalyst in society; and if society is sufficiently revolutionized, a revolution of violence will no more be needed than a windmill in a world of atomic energy.”

In these days of social upheaval and violence in our cities, followers of Jesus need to rise to the occasion, tackling the controversies and confronting the challenges, but doing so in a way that produces light not heat, conviction not rage, and hope not despair.

We do have answers in the gospel — constructive, holistic, life-changing answers — but we must practice what we preach if the world is to listen to us.

Let us, then, lead the way in bringing healing to our nation.

Let us be peacemakers rather than troublemakers, ambassadors rather than agitators. (For more from the author of “We Are Peacemakers — Not Troublemakers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Summit Declaration: Use These Principles to Compare Candidates and Platforms

/0 Comments/in , /by

On September 13, some 60 faith leaders gathered in the studios of LIFE Today, to pray together and share their heartfelt concern for the future of the nation. Hosted by The Stream’s publisher James Robison, the summit saw men and women of different denominations and ethnic groups standing in supernatural unity for the preservation of human life, religious freedom, family and marriage, and the importance of engaging in the nation’s electoral process.

Out of this body of believers has come the following declaration:

Summit Declaration

In a critical national election where the two leading candidates are far from perfect, we have come to a stark conclusion: We must set aside non-essentials that are repeated in the media, such as the candidates’ personalities, their off-hand comments, short-term political strategies, and the ups and downs of the news cycles or the polls. Instead, we feel the gentle but firm hand of Providence guiding us to pray and focus on the issues at stake, which could not be more crucial to the common good of our country and the lives of our fellow citizens.

More than two thousand years ago, the Old Testament prophet Micah laid out the criteria we must follow in 2016: He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8) The following is our best attempt to apply Micah’s test to the vital issues of today. We ask all people of faith not to be distracted by the political antics in the media, but to compare the party platforms and their candidates in light of the following principles.

Life

It is a scandalous injustice for our government to allow and enable the killing of the innocent. This was true when many states turned a blind eye to lynching, and it is true now that 50 states allow abortion. The decisions which invented a right to kill the unborn corrupted our nation’s jurisprudence at its root, distorting the “inalienable rights” that our founding documents were meant to protect. Medical science proves the humanity and individuality of the unborn child. Common decency, and a basic acceptance of biblical ethics, demand that Americans act as decisively as they can to erase this stain on our national conscience. We need a president who will identify, appoint, and fight for the confirmation of judges at the Supreme Court and appellate level who reject the falsification of our Constitution on this and other issues. Likewise, we must elect or reelect senators who will vote on judicial nominees based on their fidelity to the Constitution.

Liberty

The Bill of Rights is not a list of helpful suggestions, but the fundamental law of our land, without which the Constitution would never have been ratified. Politicians who promote policies, or appoint judges, with the intent of subverting the clear, expressed intent of the Constitution are guilty of lawlessness, and the very species of tyranny that Americans rebelled to reject. The basic rights protected by these Amendments were not granted by the Constitution or any government, but are part of human nature: They are given us by God as His image bearers on this earth. The rights especially under attack today are the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association and the right of self-defense. Strike at these, and freedom falls.

The Pursuit of Happiness

There are many issues critical to our national well-being that demand of us wisdom and prudent stewardship — qualities that have often been lacking in both political parties. Here are just a few of urgent concern:

Debt

It is neither right nor kind (in Micah’s words) to leave our grandchildren to pay the price (plus compound interest) for our reckless spending. Our legacy to them should not be a debt which they did nothing to incur and won’t be able to pay. Justice demands that we make the hard choices required to live within our means, instead of passing on unbearable debt to the next generation.
Immigration

In a nation of immigrants, today’s newcomers deserve better than to be used as a political football, or viewed cynically as a source of likely votes. They are in fact an important part of our nation’s future, for better or worse, so we must form our policies carefully, in accord with our nation’s sovereignty, safety and values. As Ronald Reagan once said, a country that doesn’t control its own borders isn’t really a country. Immigrants are people made in the image of God and deserve to be given a fair chance when they ask to be accepted into our country, but must also accept it when our considered answer is “no.” We call on government, business and the church to sit at the table of wisdom to apply justice, kindness and humility to this crucial issue.

Racial Division

We deplore the antagonism that is being stoked between ethnic groups. We are all equally Americans whose history includes many triumphs alongside some lingering scars of injustice. We repent for each failure of justice in our past, and commit ourselves to rectifying those whose effects afflict our present. We will continue to reach out across ethnic lines, using especially the links that exist in our churches to learn from each other and deepen our mutual respect and brotherly love.

The Right and Duty to Vote

We are grateful to live in a country where government is of the people, by the people and for the people. If the people don’t get involved, the process will evolve toward the rule of the elite, and maybe even to the rule of one. Because our ancestors fought for our right to be consulted in choosing our leaders, each citizen shares in sovereignty — and will be held responsible by God for how he helped to exercise it. If we slack in that responsibility, we will share the blame allotted to wicked or lazy kings, whose people perished.

The Role of the Church

The Church is the light of truth and the salt that preserves society. We realize that the state of our country now is partly our responsibility. If America is troubled, it means that we have failed to waken it to the principles that could grant it peace and freedom. We commit to doing that more effectively and creatively in the future. We call for all Christians to join us in this work, which begins with holiness in the heart and in the home.

Our Prophetic Burden

Life after the coming election will present a challenge. Americans will be more divided than they were before. Some bitterness will linger. It is imperative that we believe in the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ to change lives and redeem the culture. Our greatest work is ahead of us. Western civilization was built around a narrative that reflects the biblical story of creation, fall, redemption and flourishing. As that narrative has been altered or forgotten, respect for human dignity has deteriorated. The shepherds have scattered and left the sheep lost. To gather people again into the light that reveals their God-given dignity, we must restore the biblical narrative, show how it is more plausible and persuasive than pseudo-scientific theories that reduce men to beasts or pretend that we are gods. This task is the role of the Church and its leaders. As the Apostles did in the equally degraded world of Rome, we must become joyful proclaimers of the Word of God, and God’s revelation of Himself in history, in the person and words of Jesus, and pray fervently for the next great spiritual awakening.

(For more from the author of “Summit Declaration: Use These Principles to Compare Candidates and Platforms” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Islamic Terrorism Is Not a Narrative

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the aftermath of this past weekend’s Islamic terrorist attacks, White House press secretary Josh Earnest commented, “We are in a narrative battle. ISIL want to project the West as being at war with Islam. It’s a mythology. And we’re debunking that myth … We can’t play into this narrative that somehow the United States is fighting Islam.”

In response, conservative journalist Ben Shapiro wrote, “The people in New York weren’t hit by flying pieces of narrative.”

Indeed, Islamic terrorism is not a narrative, and the victims of Islamic terrorism worldwide, now numbering in the millions, have not been beheaded or tortured or raped or blown to pieces or burned alive or imprisoned or exiled by “flying pieces of narrative.”

No, these men, women, and children are the victims of violent people acting on a violent ideology that is a central part of their violent faith, namely, radical Islam. And so, while heads are literally rolling in the Middle East and other parts of the world, Washington elites are sticking their heads in the sand, saying that, “We are in a narrative battle.”

And what, exactly, is that “narrative”?

It is that we are not in a war with Islam, and therefore, if we acknowledge that these terrorists are Muslims or connect them in any way with the word “Islam,” we “play into this narrative that somehow the United States is fighting Islam.”

As Hillary Clinton tweeted out last November, “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Consequently, rather than seeking to understand the mindset of radical Islam and most effectively combat Islamic terrorists, our president and his colleagues categorically deny any connection between Islam and terror to the point that, in 2011, “the White House ordered a cleansing of training materials that Islamic groups deemed offensive.”

So, not only is Islamic terrorism not a narrative, but when it comes to the narrative spoken of by Josh Earnest, namely, that radical Islam is not related to Islam, the terrorists have won here too, with the White House scrubbing the all-important references to Islam from our law enforcement books.

In other words, when it comes to the battle the White House does want to fight, it is on the wrong side of the issue, falsely claiming that Muslim terrorists want America to be at war with Islam in general. Hardly. The fact is, these radical Muslims themselves are at war with other expressions of Islam worldwide.

Instead, these terrorists win the battle when we are convinced that they are not Muslims at all, thereby causing us to fight with one hand tied behind our back and one eye closed (at the least).

Note also that there is a false narrative put forth by the White House and Hillary Clinton, namely, that no Muslims are terrorists, as if the moment a lifelong, devoted Muslim commits an act of terror for the cause of Allah, he or she is now disqualified from being a Muslim.

Based on what Islamic tenet or text?

To the contrary, while a Christian could never behead an unbeliever and say, “Hey, I’m just following Jesus’ example,” a Muslim could commit this same act and say, “Hey, I’m just following Muhammad’s example.”

As for Hillary’s statement that, “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism,” does she mean the Muslims in Iran who hang gays, or the Muslims in Saudi Arabia who behead adulterers, or the Muslims in Pakistan who go on a bloody rampage over charges that a Koran has been defiled, or the Muslims in Afghanistan who prevent women from going to school, or the Muslims in those countries that enforce the death penalty for conversion?

Had she said, “Many Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people,” most of us would have agreed without hesitation. Had she even said, “The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists,” most of us would have agreed with that too.

But her blanket statement, like those of the president and others in the past, is demonstrably false, both ideologically and historically, and it thereby emboldens the terrorists to be more brazen still, since they can more easily fly right under our all too patchy radar.

This brings us back to the reality that the battle with Islamic terrorism is not a battle of narratives, and I can assure you that a Yazidi family in Iraq mourning over the gang rape of their young daughter or a Christian family in Syria mourning over the decapitation of all their males is not wondering about the “narrative,” and thinking, “I sure hope America doesn’t blame all Muslims for this.”

Instead, they are wondering why the West is so slow to recognize the very real threat of radical Islam, and they would be shocked to know that, rather than declare war on Islamic terrorists, the president of the most powerful nation in the world is doing damage control for Islam.

What a narrative. (For more from the author of “Islamic Terrorism Is Not a Narrative” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Skittles, the IRS Commissioner, and This Congressman Have in Common

/0 Comments/in , /by

In an otherwise repetitive three-and-a-half hours, there were several weird moments during the House Judiciary Committee hearing with IRS Commissioner John Koskinen on Wednesday. The hearing was supposed to be about impeachment articles brought against Koskinen, but Democrats on the committee used the time to attack Donald Trump instead.

Congressman Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill. (F, 24%) opened his five-minute questioning slot by chewing on a Skittle, declaring:

“I really love Skittles because, as you see, they come orange, yellow, red, and purple — all the different colors. And they come all together in a bag — together, right? All different colors, kind of like a rainbow. A lot of people on this side of the aisle … we like that,” Gutierrez opined in a none-too-subtle swipe at conservatives.

Other Democrats used their time to ask Koskinen questions about Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s tax returns, charitable donations, and how the heavily scrutinized relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin might influence a Trump presidency. On all this, Koskinen demurred, nor did the Democrats acknowledge or question how the many foreign interests tied to the Clinton Foundation might affect a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Meanwhile, Republicans spent their time grilling Commissioner Koskinen on how 422 backup records with Lois Lerner’s emails on them got destroyed under his watch.

Koskinen’s account of events strains credulity: During a midnight shift in an IRS center in Martinsburg, W.V., two employees destroyed 422 backup data of Lerner’s emails after they “identified them as junk,” according to Koskinen.

This was after a standing order had been put in place by Koskinen to collect records with her emails. And, according to Koskinen, similar orders had been put in place six months before he began working for the IRS in December 2013.

The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have serious questions about why John Koskinen — who was supposed to clean up the Lois Lerner/targeting mess at the IRS — doesn’t know more about how effective his efforts were in 2014 and ‘15. He had been on the job well over a year when the inspector general discovered that two IRS employees (one of whom still works at the IRS, Koskinen admitted Wednesday) had destroyed 422 backup records of Lerner’s emails during graveyard hours.

As someone watching the hearing, I began to wonder two hours in why House Republicans haven’t already issued a subpoena for Koskinen’s emails to see what he was saying about the Lerner emails, and what he might have known about the backup records. Doing so would have enabled Republicans to ask more detailed questions and possibly shed light on whether Koskinen’s excuses are really just that — excuses for incompetency, or even flat-out lies.

Three hours after the hearing started, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah (C, 78%) and Chairman Bob Goodlatte R-Va. (D, 66%) finally asked Koskinen for “any written communication” regarding the standing order he put in place asking IRS employees to retrieve information on the Lerner emails.

Still, they could have made their ask broader so as to include the written communications of senior-level IRS employees — especially ones that work directly under Koskinen. One of the persistent complaints from Republicans against Commissioner Koskinen during this hearing was that he’s the head of the IRS … but seems to have no control over very destructive practices of his staff.

Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have five legislative days to submit written inquiries to Koskinen, and it would behoove them to demand written communications from any IRS employee who might have known or covered up the destruction of evidence before Congress breaks for a long October recess. Some members of the Freedom Caucus may attempt to force a vote on Koskinen’s impeachment after the November elections, after they tried but failed to do so last week.

As Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. (A, 90%) pointed out during Wednesday’s hearing, Koskinen “would never let an American taxpayer treat an IRS audit” like he has treated the House’s inquiries into the IRS scandal and his incompetent clean-up job. Regardless, Koskinen declared that he’s “proud” of his “overall record at the IRS.”

Whether John Koskinen is a liar, negligent, or just incompetent, he needs to go. (For more from the author of “What Skittles, the IRS Commissioner, and This Congressman Have in Common” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Seven Deadly Reasons Why the Left Loves Islam

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Imagine that some splinter Christian sect existed that preached a sneering contempt for women, sex slavery, hatred for Jews, death to non-believers (and homosexuals), child-marriage, religious conquest, segregation and gross religious discrimination, and the legitimacy of lying whenever it suited the church’s purposes. Imagine that it had been practicing all these evils since shortly after its founding, and had left mountains of corpses on three continents — complete with burned libraries, looted cities and ruined civilizations.

Do you think that secular leftists would spend their time and energy making excuses for such a church? Would they fight like wildcats to admit millions of its followers into Western lands? Or would they boycott any country where it predominated as they did racist South Africa? Would they subject its American followers to ruthless surveillance and government harassment, as the Clinton administration did the Branch Davidians? Would they send the FBI to fill its ranks with helpful informers, as the government did to the white-nationalist Christian Identity “churches”?

The question answers itself.

People whose minds work in linear fashion draw from all this the conclusion that leftists concerned with equality, social justice, and personal freedom would strongly oppose orthodox Islam and rethink their attitude toward Islamic immigration if only they knew the facts. Clearly these well-meaning people just haven’t been informed about the teachings of orthodox Islam and the track record of its faithful followers. So it’s our job to share those facts.

So far so good. We have the duty to do just that. Marshal those Quranic suras, those authoritative haditha, and cite abundant examples of atrocities which those canonical texts have directly inspired. Recount the recent sermons of highly placed widely respected Muslim religious authorities who approve recent attacks of terrorism or gross religious violence.

But don’t get your hopes up.

Far too many leftists have built insuperable barriers to that information, and nothing — literally nothing — you say or do could convince them. While knowledge may be power, the human will is stronger. We are richly capable of denying the facts in front of our faces if they go against where our guts want to lead us.

That raises another, more interesting question: Why would leftists who are outraged, say, that the Catholic church won’t ordain women or that Southern Baptists won’t celebrate same-sex weddings, give a pass to a faith that endorses child polygamy and executes homosexuals? What’s in it for them?

As the author of a book on the Seven Deadly Sins, let me step in here and tell you. I’ll taxonomize the motives of pro-Muslim progressives according to each of those classic human motives. Perhaps not every progressive who’s in denial about Islam is in the grip of Deadly Sins. But I’ll wager that most of them are driven by one or more of the following:

Lust

Plenty of progressive men first adopted their views as a mating strategy. And indeed, spouting feminist rhetoric probably did help them in the bedroom. But this easy intimacy filled their lives with a series of thin-skinned, self-righteous women with an unsleeping vigilance for the slightest trace of “patriarchy.” Perhaps, on a deep, subconscious level, such men can’t help admiring bearded foreigners with harems who don’t have to pay this price for pleasure.

Gluttony

This might seem too trivial to make much of a difference, but you’d be shocked at how many progressives form their immigration policies around the crucial issue of access to ethnic restaurants. It’s not just food, of course. People who hunger to see themselves and be seen as sophisticated and cosmopolitan also want access to hookah-pipe cafes, funky foreign clothes and “exotic” neighborhoods where they can dip into alien cultures — but of course, would never live. Other progressives hunger for approval, and look for a cost-free way to gain it, by siding with supposedly “oppressed” groups like Palestinians, or radical Muslims forced out of countries by secular governments.

Wrath

Too many progressives nurse a deep, insatiable hatred for the Christian and Western past, and also for those of us in the present who are loyal to such things as church, nation or Western civilization. These people don’t so much think as feel that if a roadside Pentecostalist church in Oregon is allowed to abstain from gay weddings without swift and certain punishment, within five years the Spanish Inquisition will be burning witches on Wall Street. Or something. As I said, they don’t sweat the details.

Greed

For the past 30 years, no one has been kept off a TV network or failed to get tenure because he was too friendly to exotic, foreign cultures, or too hostile to Western ones. Even Fox News won’t air the most candid critics of Islam. Those critics have to resort to online TV shows (some of which are excellent, by the way, like The Glazov Gang).

Sloth

It’s so much easier to follow the narrative that makes you comfortable, pumped out by elites whom you have decided to trust, than to ferret out facts that are only likely to ruin your day. And anyway, what can you do? What will happen will happen, and trying to push back against overpowering forces of history is exhausting. What’s the point?

Vainglory

Nothing is lower prestige in our culture today than being a narrow-minded bigot — which is how everyone who matters sees people who criticize other cultures. It suggests that you haven’t traveled to foreign countries, attended elite academies, or mixed with the best kind of people. You might as well just put on a Trump hat, drive a red pickup truck to a NASCAR rally, and stand there listening to Nash-Trash while drinking Budweiser (non-ironically). Please.

Envy

If there’s one worldview that’s predicated on frustrating natural human drives and diverting them into strange, unnatural byways, it’s progressivism. You’re expected to prosper while loathing capitalism, raise boys to play with dolls and girls to play with guns, and compete for social status while battling for equality. Muslims don’t have to fake any of that. Their faith is nothing if not candid: It’s about joining the winning team, with God on its side, which will gladly use force and fraud to make sure it comes out on top — in this life and the next one. Its ethics could have been crafted by bands of Vikings or a cabal of adolescent boys. What fun we would have, some progressives may imagine, if they could only swallow Islam. Most can’t. But they can take vicarious pleasure in seeing it in action, and in watching the Christians squirm. Delicious. (For more from the author of “Seven Deadly Reasons Why the Left Loves Islam” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What’s at Stake in the Next Supreme Court Term

/0 Comments/in , /by

The next Supreme Court term is beginning Oct. 3—and there’s plenty of contentious issues on the docket for the eight justices to rule on.

“The cases this term may be hard-pressed to match the excitement and media flurry that accompanied highly anticipated rulings in recent years, such as cases involving same-sex marriage, immigration, abortion, and President [Barack] Obama’s signature health care law,” The Heritage Foundation’s Elizabeth Slattery, a legal fellow, and Tiffany Bates, a legal research associate, wrote.

“But the upcoming term has the potential to become an important year for property rights, the separation of powers, and copyright law.”

At an event at The Heritage Foundation on Tuesday, Paul Clement, a former solicitor general of the United States, said, “It is a very interesting time at the court.”

“That doesn’t automatically translate into interesting cases,” he added.

The 2016-17 Supreme Court term begins on Oct. 3. Justices agree to hear about 1 percent, or roughly 70 cases, out of approximately 7,000 petitions for review they receive each year, according to Heritage research. Already the court has agreed to hear arguments for 31 cases and oral arguments are set for 19 cases in October and November.

“It’s certainly right that the court seems to be reluctant to add cases to their docket that they think in advance may well divide them four to four,” Clement said.

Here are three key cases the Supreme Court will hear in its next term.

1. Murr v. Wisconsin

This case is about four siblings who own two adjacent waterfront properties. Their parents built a cabin on the first lot after obtaining the parcels separately in the 1960s. The siblings, decades later, looked into developing or selling the second lot and found that zoning regulations prevented them from doing so and that the state considered both lots to be one property.

“As it turns out under state law not only can they not sell the one parcel, but they are not even allowed now to develop the other parcel, which it seems to me about the most extreme regulatory scheme you can devise,” Carter Phillips, a former assistant to the solicitor general, said at the Heritage event.

Clement and and Phillips have each argued more than 80 before the Supreme Court.

Phillips said this case seems “unbelievably unfair” and that sometimes the government goes too far in its “regulatory scheme.”

The case has not been scheduled for oral argument.

2. Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley

Supreme Court cases sometimes come from the “most unlikely government programs,” Clement said, describing another case, this one involving church and state. The case involves Trinity Lutheran Church and a Missouri scrap tire program.

“When you buy new tires in the state of Missouri … you pay a small tax and that goes into a fund. What that fund helps do is take used tires and instead of having them fill up landfills where they create all sorts of problems, those get sort of shredded and treated and then they get used to make playgrounds for children safer,” Clement said.

In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley, one of the likely highlights for the term, Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri applied for a state-funded grant to install a rubber playground surface for the church’s daycare and preschool. The state denied its application on the basis that it was a religious institution.

Oral argument for the case have not been scheduled, but Clement said this is a “very important case.”

“This is perhaps the best example of a case that the court is taking a really long time to schedule for oral argument,” Clement said. “This case was granted in the same sitting where a number of cases were granted last year and scheduled and argued and decided already.”

Clement predicted there could be a closely divided court on this case.

“It does seem like the most logical inference is this is a case where the court is going to take its time scheduling this in the hopes that they might have nine justices to decide the case,” he said.

3. National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc.

Another case this term concerns the president’s power to fill vacancies in government roles. Under the Constitution, the Senate must provide “advice and consent” before the president can appoint officers.

However, the president can nominate “acting” officers to high-level federal offices before the Senate has acted, although federal law limits the length of time such officers can serve and who can be appointed.

The case National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. challenges “the service of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon, who was responsible for prosecuting unfair labor practices,” according to Heritage’s research.

Heritage’s Slattery and Bates wrote:

President Obama appointed Solomon as Acting General Counsel in 2010 and also nominated him for the permanent post in 2011. This issue came up in the course of an unfair labor practice charge against SW General, Inc., a company that provides emergency medical services to hospitals; the company asserted that Solomon was serving in violation of the [Federal Vacancies Reform Act].

The case is scheduled for oral argument on Nov. 7. According to Slattery and Bates, “the outcome of this case could have broad and long-reaching effects for the separation of powers and on federal agencies’ actions if their high-level officials were appointed in violation of” the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.

Additional cases that could come up for review by the Supreme Court, according to Heritage research, could be about the Washington Redskins’ trademark, another Obamacare challenge, and the issue of schools’ bathroom policies for transgender students. (For more from the author of “What’s at Stake in the Next Supreme Court Term” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Three Worst Lies in His Last UN Address

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It was hard to pick only three of the worst lies from Barack Obama’s speech today, but we did it.

LIE ONE

Remember when Barack Obama said Republicans are afraid of widows and orphans, that was right before women and children became suicide bombers. He’s still saying it and it’s patently untrue.

The Breitbart London editor picked up this massive lie by Barack Obama. He actually lied to the UN with statistics that directly contradict those of the UN. He’s lied to them before. Take the lie about the video causing the Benghazi “protest”.

LIE TWO

Globalist Obama just plain lied about poverty in the U.S.

During his speech, the president said, “Last year, poverty in this country fell at the fastest rate in nearly 50 years. And with further investment in infrastructure and early childhood education and basic research, I’m confident that such progress will continue.”

It’s an absolutely provable lie. Poverty Levels Under Barack Obama SKYROCKET To 50-Year Record High, as The Washington Times reported,

LIE THREE

Obama thinks he solved the Iranian nuclear crisis. He’s made it worse. Look at how much the Iranians respect us now – constantly harassing our ships. We sure taught them.

His opening paragraph was a massive lie but my favorite was him saying he solved the Iranian nuclear crisis with diplomacy.

“From the depths of the greatest financial crisis of our time, we coordinated our response to avoid further catastrophe and return the global economy to growth. We’ve taken away terrorist safe havens, strengthened the nonproliferation regime, resolved the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy.”

The Iranian nuclear deal guarantees Iran will have the bomb and he sent them billions in wire transfers to help them proliferate and lied about it. How is that strengthening the nonproliferation regime?

Barack Obama doesn’t believe in the United States or any sovereign nation, he believes in globalism. He wants to redistribute our wealth throughout the world and the other nations will readily take it but if he thinks dictators will give up their little fiefdoms, he’s truly insane.

The entire speech proves he lives in an alternative universe. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Three Worst Lies in His Last UN Address” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

We Shouldn’t Give Away the Internet to Authoritarian Regimes

/0 Comments/in , /by

The essence of human freedom, of civilization itself, is cooperation: cooperation between friends and family; businesses and customers; entrepreneurs and employees.

History and human experience teach that humans cooperate best when they do so voluntarily, without government coercion. That is why I fully support the eventual transition of control over the internet from the Department of Commerce and to a private entity.

But I also worry that President Barack Obama is hastily rushing the current transfer of power to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which could make it easier for the United Nations to take over the internet.

Today, the internet is so vast and ubiquitous that it is hard to imagine it existing in any other form. But for the first few decades of the internet’s existence, the basic roadmap for navigating the internet—the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), the system that allocates and records the unique numerical addresses to computers—was managed by just one man on a voluntary basis.

In 1998, the Commerce Department began contracting with ICANN, a California nonprofit corporation, to take over management of IANA and the internet’s domain name system. For the most part, the Commerce Department has allowed ICANN to govern itself, but it has always maintained the authority to pull the nonprofit’s contract, which allowed the federal government to ensure that its contracting partner did not stray from its original mission.

But some governments do not like ICANN’s current hands-off approach to internet regulation. They want more control over how internet traffic is managed and what domain names are allowed to exist.

Just five years after ICANN was created, the United Nations established a Working Group on Internet Governance “to investigate and make proposals for action … on the governance of Internet.” And in 2012 at the World Conference on International Telecommunications, several authoritarian regimes—including Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia—called for the “sovereign right” of governments to “establish and implement public policy, including international policy, on matters of Internet governance.”

The United States firmly resisted these calls for more international control over the internet until 2013 when Edward Snowden leaked details of the National Security Agency’s surveillance program, which led the Obama administration to believe it could not maintain international support for the current system. So in March 2014, the Commerce Department announced it would be fully transferring the internet’s names and numbers functions to ICANN. In other words, the federal government would relinquish its leverage over ICANN by giving up its ability to renew—or threaten to cancel—ICANN’s contract.

Normally, I would applaud the loss of federal government leverage over a private entity. But in this case, there are some ominous signs that ICANN is not ready for the role it is about to take on.

ICANN is currently involved in litigation over alleged improper interference from governments who objected to how the organization awarded the .africa domain name. And the organization was recently admonished by an independent review panel for making decisions that were “cavalier” and “simply not credible” in relation to an application for domain names.

Also, it is unclear whether the new bylaws ICANN is set to adopt for the transition will be strong enough to prevent Russia and China from exerting more control over internet governance.

For these reasons, I am working closely with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and other senators to delay the final transfer of internet governance to ICANN. There is no reason this transfer has to happen this year. There is no reason not to allow ICANN to work through its new governance structure on a trial basis for two years so we can make sure it will run smoothly and in a truly independent manner.

If we rush this transition and ICANN fails, it will be nearly impossible to get the internet back from the authoritarian regimes that are pushing for more control.

That is simply not a risk we can take. (For more from the author of “We Shouldn’t Give Away the Internet to Authoritarian Regimes” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

3 Simple Ways to Win the Debate on Obamacare

/0 Comments/in , /by

Before March 2010, health care reform was already a divisive political issue. People chose sides for very personal reasons, which made it a difficult topic to discuss using an indoor voice.

Then Obamacare hit the scene. Promises made were not kept, and Americans are still facing the consequences—including higher premiums, fewer choices of doctors, and waiting periods.

With the first presidential debate and open enrollment season just around the corner, health care is poised to be a hot topic yet again.

Whether you’re talking to a neighbor about your increasing premiums or a co-worker about the latest health care debate on Capitol Hill, here are some tips for talking about Obamacare from a free-market, limited-government perspective that beats back socialism without beating down your opponent.

1. Find Common Ground

The common denominator on both sides of the argument is the desire for access to quality, affordable health care. Regardless of position, class, income, or location, health care should be cost-effective and accessible for everyone.

Furthermore, the part of the health care debate that nearly everyone agrees on is the need to address what happens to those with pre-existing conditions. For too long, those who suffered with a pre-existing condition were up against a nearly impossible task to find affordable, quality health care—those who needed it the most were often denied. A solution to this issue is something we can seek to solve together.

These well-known aspects of the health care debate create a common goal and make room for a discussion to work toward a solution.

2. Use Examples

There are numerous facts and statistics that prove Obamacare is not working as we were promised.

Just this year, average premium costs for an employment-based insurance family plan have skyrocketed to $15,500. In just a few years, those costs are projected to increase another 60 percent.

In March, on the sixth anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, The Daily Signal released this video, detailing six broken promises made by President Barack Obama regarding his health care plan.

Among other promises that were not kept, Americans were assured: you would be able to keep your current plan if you liked it; families making less than $250,000 would see no tax increase; Obamacare would not add to the deficit; premiums would decrease; and federal conscience laws would remain in place.

If you want to cite personal anecdotes, there are plenty. For example, I am a small business owner and therefore purchase my own health care. My premiums have tripled (while my health has remained the same) since the introduction of Obamacare. And I know my story isn’t unique.

Use stats and examples that prove Obamacare has achieved the opposite of what we were promised. Focus on the broken system, higher costs, longer wait times, and less choice.

3. Choose Your Words Carefully

The words and terms you use in this debate have the power to determine how your argument is received.

Even though the president embraced this legislation as his own, use the “president’s health care law” or the “Affordable Care Act” when talking to people who like it. Throwing “Obamacare” around will put liberals on the defensive, and then any chance for a reasonable conversation is harder to achieve.

While we may consider it unconstitutional to mandate that Americans buy a product whether or not they want it or need it, don’t focus on Obamacare being “unconstitutional.” That isn’t a winning argument for someone who is in favor of the health care law. Instead, focus on real-life implications like fewer choices, longer waits, and higher costs—all of which are happening and are the opposite of what we were promised. Proving injustice is easier, and fairness is a term they care a whole lot about.

Obamacare has not turned out to be a good deal for any of us, and this election season is an important time to discuss the law and its long-term implications. Civil discourse may be our best starting point to hold the president accountable and develop a health care system that truly works for all Americans. (For more from the author of “3 Simple Ways to Win the Debate on Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Yes, It’s Terrorism. Ditch the Bizarre Verbal Contortions and Say It.

/0 Comments/in , /by

Yes, it’s terrorism.

Say it.

Why is this so difficult for political leaders? They engage in verbal contortions to avoid stating the obvious after a terrorist attack.

While it’s perfectly appropriate to gather the evidence and available information on the Chelsea explosion before drawing a definitive conclusion as to the motive, it’s bizarre the lengths to which some left-leaning politicians will go to avoid using the word “terrorism.”

Speaking to Americans as if they’re children and intentionally, consistently avoiding the word “terrorism” — while simultaneously telling people that an explosive device was intentionally placed in a crowded downtown area of Manhattan on a Saturday night — is the pinnacle of leadership failure. Avoiding calling a threat what it is speaks to a persistent weakness among our political leadership and sends a dangerous signal to the people around the world who wish to do us catastrophic harm.

There are two clear consequences to this hesitancy to call the terror threat what it is.

First, it sends a signal to the American people that this isn’t the severe threat we all instinctively know it is. This isn’t a law enforcement matter to be treated as some nuisance crime, it’s an attack on liberty and our way of life and its severity demands a commensurate response.

Second, it sends a dangerous signal to our terrorist enemies that politics matters more to elected leaders than public safety. They have already leveraged political correctness, the culture wars, and the American legal system against us all, just to make sure we focus on grotesquely exaggerated and politically motivated charges of “bigotry”before we focus on the threat to our public safety.

American politicians need a wake up call. American citizens don’t.

We will never remedy a problem which our failed political class can’t recognize. (For more from the author of “Yes, It’s Terrorism. Ditch the Bizarre Verbal Contortions and Say It.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.