SORRY, FOLKS: Donald Trump Is the Washington Establishment

There’s an important opinion piece by former U.S. prosecutor and staunch Constitutionalist Andrew C. McCarthy that every GOP primary voter should read. You say you want the key graphs? Boom.

Donald Trump is the Washington establishment. The fact that he has not previously held public office does not make him an “outsider.” Hell, Reince Priebus — the head of the Republican National Committee — has never held public office. If the ruling class were just the officeholders, it would be short-lived. The Donald Trumps who pay the freight are the Washington establishment’s lifeblood. They are joined to the officeholders at the hip . . . or hadn’t you noticed Governor Christie shadowing The Donald?

…Take John Boehner, former House speaker, GOP establishment pillar . . . and longtime Trump golf pal. When last seen, in his Capitol Hill swan song, Boehner was courting Democrats and slamming through a budget that forfeited all Republican leverage against Obama. But with Trump kicking off his California campaign this week, there was Boehner, thrilling the campus Left at Stanford University with snipes at Ted Cruz. The Texas senator is “Lucifer in the flesh,” chortled the former speaker, and “a more miserable son of a bitch” than anyone with whom Boehner had worked in his entire life.

Remember: Boehner spent the last decade working with Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. Yet, it’s Ted Cruz he can’t abide. As it happens, Cruz and Boehner barely know each other. They overlapped in Washington for a little over one congressional term, in different chambers. They’ve exchanged few words (none of them cross, apparently) in the few times they’ve spoken, and they’ve never worked together — at least not directly. Cruz, however, is a principled conservative, who fought Obamacare to the bitter end; Boehner brought about the bitter end by pushing to fund Obamacare while pretending to oppose it…

…As it happens, Cruz and Boehner barely know each other. They overlapped in Washington for a little over one congressional term, in different chambers. They’ve exchanged few words (none of them cross, apparently) in the few times they’ve spoken, and they’ve never worked together — at least not directly. Cruz, however, is a principled conservative, who fought Obamacare to the bitter end; Boehner brought about the bitter end by pushing to fund Obamacare while pretending to oppose it. That experience is enough for Boehner to spew his bile and count himself as #NeverCruz . . . though he’d gladly vote for Trump, with whom he bragged of being “texting buddies.”

Want to know why Obamacare is fully funded? Why the meager spending caps enacted in 2011 were busted? Why the debt limit was suspended so Washington could zoom past its $18 trillion credit line? Why Obama’s lawless executive order granting de facto amnesty to illegal aliens is proceeding apace? Why Obama is emptying Guantanamo Bay and planning to transfer detainees into the United States? Why the EPA continues to implement Obama’s climate-change agenda despite a Supreme Court stay of its anti-coal regulation? Why no official was impeached and no funding was slashed when the IRS was used as a political weapon against conservative groups? Why the Justice Department has a $27 billion budget that pays for its paralyzing investigations of the nation’s police departments while the attorney general threatens new legal action against climate-change “deniers” and “anti-Muslim” speech? Thank John Boehner.

…To fight Obama on these and other progressive priorities would have required exploiting Congress’s constitutional authority, particularly the power of the purse. Boehner and other GOP leaders were given this power because voters believed their promises to fight. Empty promises…

While Boehner was surrendering, Donald Trump was backing him to the hilt: a staggering $100,000 contribution to the Congressional Leadership Fund — Boehner’s super PAC, formed largely to fend off conservative primary challenges against GOP establishment loyalists. It should be easy to remember that number, $100,000. It is the same amount Trump gave to the Clinton Foundation. That’s even more than the $60,000 Trump gave to Kentuckians for Strong Leadership, the super PAC of Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell…

As they say on the real blogs, read the whole thing. And then pass it on.

Especially to your pals in Indiana.

It’s time to take a stand against John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and the rest of the GOPe. The time is now. Take action now. (For more from the author of “SORRY, FOLKS: Donald Trump Is the Washington Establishment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Do Pro-Choice Catholics Even Exist?

When a large group of highly educated people who have dedicated themselves to an organization with firm doctrines, strict rules, and stern demands — such as the Catholic Church — lose their faith in those doctrines, rules and demands, what do they do with themselves instead? Shrug and join the Unitarians? Leave their rectories or convents and go find apartments, maybe jobs as high school guidance counselors?

What do families like the Pelosis, the Kennedys or the Bidens — and millions of non-famous Irish and Italian-American clans with strong ethnic and historical connections to the Church — do with themselves when they reject its teaching authority?

The history of the Catholic left gives us the answer: Such people focused on the parts of the Church’s mission that still appealed to them, such as looking out for the poor and rebuking unjust discrimination. And of course the Church has an almost 2,000 year tradition of offering the needy education, health care, and a voice in the face of genuine oppression. Many Catholics had joined the Civil Rights movement and marched for integration.

In the 1960s, there were fresh, exciting causes available for Catholics to join which modeled themselves on the Civil Rights movement’s tactics and rhetoric, whose agendas were not so compatible with traditional Christian teaching as the noble fight against institutionalized racism had been. Feminists, homosexuals, and anti-war activists began to throng the streets and demand radical changes in American law and policy, and many Catholics with left-wing sympathies and deep roots in the Democratic Party began to exert their energies on behalf of these new movements — assuring themselves that they were acting as Jesus had when he denounced the scribes and Pharisees.

Many grandchildren of Catholic immigrants to our overwhelmingly Protestant country still clung to the pretense that they were outsiders — excluded and marginalized victims of the existing American establishment. So they felt bound to make common cause with every other “outside” group, regardless of the justice of its claims. This outsider illusion made it easy for them to be right about Civil Rights … and then poisonously wrong about feminism, gay liberation, and socialist economics.

So Catholics who’d once taken part in Freedom Rides for black Americans got swept up in a “Women’s Liberation” movement that sought to dismantle legal definitions of marriage, laws restricting abortion, and finally the traditional family itself. That movement’s greatest success was Roe v. Wade, which gave the U.S. the laxest abortion laws on earth — outside of Communist countries — and resulted in the deaths of more than a million American unborn children every year since 1973. What most people don’t know is that the Kennedy family had helped lay the groundwork for that decision a decade before. As Philip Lawler reports in The Faithful Departed:

In July 1964, several liberal theologians received invitations to the Kennedy family compound in Hyannisport, Massachusetts, for a discussion of how a Catholic politician should handle the abortion issue. Notice now that abortion was not a major political issue in 1964. …

The participants in that Hyannisport meeting composed a Who’s Who of liberal theologians, most of them Jesuits… Father Robert Drinan … Father Charles Curran … Father Joseph Fuchs, a Jesuit professor at Rome’s Gregorian… Jesuits Richard McCormack, Albert Jensen, and Giles Milhaven.

For two days the theologians huddled in the Cape Cod resort town as guests of the Kennedys. Eventually they reached a consensus, which they passed along to their political patrons. Abortion, they agreed, could sometimes be morally acceptable as the lesser of two evils. Lawmakers should certainly not encourage abortion, but a blanket prohibition might be more harmful to the common good… (81).

Nine years before the fact, the financial and intellectual elite of American Catholicism were, in Lawler’s words, “waiting for Roe v. Wade.”

Similar Catholics joined Marxist-organized antiwar marches and demanded an end to the U.S. intervention in Vietnam, which had been launched in part to protect millions of South Vietnamese Christians from Communist oppression. Some Catholics even joined “gay liberation” movements, which began with attempts to stop police harassment, but quickly evolved into demands that the law make no distinction between heterosexual marriage and homosexual relationships. We have seen that movement culminate in 2015 with the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges, which has endangered the religious freedom of millions of American Christians.

The Left Wouldn’t Leave the Church, So the People Did

As the Catholic left developed, it became increasingly hard to distinguish from secular progressive movements, except in its use of biblical metaphors and cherry-picked quotes from Church documents to further its agenda. Instead of leaving the priesthood, convent, or bishop’s palace, far too many church leaders instead chose to hollow out the theological core of the Church’s mission, and transform it into an activist social welfare agency. Since the dissidents wouldn’t leave, many of the people did: Mass attendance plummeted, the Catholic Church began bleeding believers to outright secularism, and vibrantly doctrinal evangelical Protestant churches.

The reigns of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI saw the rise of a devoted faithful Catholic resistance to these toxic trends in the Church. Orthodox Catholic colleges were founded, home-schooling spread through Catholic circles as a means of passing along the integral faith, and the overwhelming majority of new priests and nuns were those who joined conservative orders or dioceses. Those two popes made a conscious effort to choose more reliable bishops, and the Church saw a mini-renaissance.

However, the impact of that resistance was limited in its scope to a self-selecting subculture, as progressives clung to institutional power and retained control over many dioceses and most Catholic colleges. Now with the advent of Pope Francis, that counterrevolution’s future is in question, and previous trends are reasserting themselves.

In 2015, the Pew Study reported that a shocking 41 percent of adult American Catholics leave the church at some point, most never to return:

Both the mainline and historically black Protestant traditions have lost more members than they have gained through religious switching, but within Christianity the greatest net losses, by far, have been experienced by Catholics. Nearly one-third of American adults (31.7%) say they were raised Catholic. Among that group, fully 41% no longer identify with Catholicism. This means that 12.9% of American adults are former Catholics, while just 2% of U.S. adults have converted to Catholicism from another religious tradition. No other religious group in the survey has such a lopsided ratio of losses to gains.

In other words, the American church is shrinking, and would be diminishing quickly as a share of the U.S. population, were it not for a constant influx of Catholic immigrants. According to a subsequent report by Pew:

[M]ore than a quarter of U.S. Catholic adults (27%) were born outside the country, compared with 15% of U.S. adults overall; most of these Catholic immigrants (22% of all U.S. Catholics) are from elsewhere in the Americas.

As of 2014, an additional 15% of Catholic Americans have at least one foreign-born parent. That leaves 57% of Catholics who were born in the U.S. to two native-born parents. By comparison, nearly three-quarters (74%) of American adults overall were born in the country to two U.S.-born parents….

The median age of Catholic adults in the U.S. is 49 years old – four years older than it was in 2007. Catholics are significantly older than members of non-Christian faiths (40) and people who are not affiliated with any religion (36).

Just 17% of Catholic adults are under the age of 30, compared with 22% of U.S. adults, 35% of religious “nones” and 44% of U.S. Muslims.

Without the mass influx of new Catholics who have not yet been subjected to the acid of our secular culture and the tepidness in many of our local church institutions, the Catholic Church in America would look much more like the Episcopal or Methodist church: a shrinking, aging organization with diminishing influence — and a small but dedicated orthodox protest movement.

Nor are newly imported Catholics by any means certain to continue warming our parish pews. First Things has reported (citing Pew statistics):

Roughly one-third of Catholic adults in the U.S. are Latino, but just over half (55 percent) of Latino adults here are Catholics. As recently as 2010, that figure stood at two-thirds.

Close to one in four Latinos were raised Catholic but have since become (for the most part) Protestant or unaffiliated. Among Hispanics ages eighteen to twenty-nine, just 45 percent are Catholic, and that number could keep dropping as they age: Almost four in ten of these young adults say they “could imagine leaving the Catholic Church someday.”

All these outcomes, you might think, would alarm the Vatican that the Church is shrinking and fading in the world’s most influential nation. Key papal appointments of “social justice” prelates such as Blaise Cupich to the crucial archdiocese of Chicago, and invitations to Rome for the likes of Bernie Sanders and Joseph Biden, suggest that Pope Francis has not gotten the message. (For more from the author of “Why Do Pro-Choice Catholics Even Exist?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

President Hillary Clinton

hqdefaultOnly Republicans can make President Hillary Clinton a reality.

On January, 20, 2017, President Hillary Clinton might just become a reality. With her face set in the tight unpleasant grimace that is the closest she can come to smiling, she will take the oath of office on a bible, her Alinsky thesis or an Eleanor Roosevelt Ouija board vowing to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

If the bible doesn’t burst into flames on the spot, she will take office with one more lie on her stained conscience after a long career of them.

And the United States will enter the longest period of uninterrupted Democrat rule since FDR. It will be the single greatest opportunity for the left to transform America since the days of the New Deal.

Think of America before the New Deal. And then think of how much America changed after it.

It might behoove Republicans to stop accusing each other of having short fingers or 600 mistresses and start making the case against Hillary Clinton if they want to win anything worth winning. In the midst of all the exciting debates about establishment conspiracies and shoving video forensics, too many have forgotten what is really at stake here and what they ought to really be talking about.

The national debt will go up. So will your taxes. Hillary Clinton is promising a trillion dollar tax hike. And that’s during her campaign. Imagine how much she will really raise taxes once she’s actually in office.

Two Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy will likely leave office on her watch. That’s in addition to Scalia’s empty seat which she will fill resulting in an ideological switch for the court. Additionally, Kennedy, for all his flaws, was a swing vote. Hillary’s appointee won’t be swinging anywhere. The Supreme Court will once again become a reliable left-wing bastion.

Even if the Democrats never manage to retake Congress, they will control two out of three branches of government. And with an activist Supreme Court and the White House, the left will have near absolute power to redefine every aspect of society on their own terms without facing any real challenges.

And they will use it. Your life changed fundamentally under Obama. The process will only accelerate.

You will have less free speech. You will pay more for everything. Your children and grandchildren will be taught to hate you twice as hard. Local democracy will continue being eroded. Your community, your school, your town, your city and your state will be run out of D.C. You will live under the shadow of being arrested for violating some regulation that you never even heard of before.

Every day you will notice basic aspects of life that you took for granted just vanishing while a carefully selected multicultural audience cheers on television.

Hillary Clinton had a man sent to jail for uploading a video about Mohammed. What do you think she’ll do to even more vocal critics of Islam? How long will it be until a new Supreme Court decides that a Mohammed cartoon is “shouting fire in a crowded theater” and not protected by the Constitution?

On gun control, Hillary Clinton managed to combine an attack on both of the first two amendments of the Bill of Rights by insisting, “We cannot let a minority of people… hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.” What would she do to prevent them from holding that viewpoint? Or any other viewpoints that she doesn’t think people should be allowed to hold?

If you thought that conservatives were targeted under Obama, imagine what will happen under the woman who blamed all her problems, including her husband’s infidelity, on a “vast right-wing conspiracy”. Barack Obama is surrounded by radical leftists. Hillary Clinton’s circle however is filled with political thugs like David Brock and Sidney Blumenthal who channel her worst paranoid tendencies.

President Hillary Clinton will seek to root out that vast right-wing conspiracy which prevented Bill Clinton from keeping his pants on and made ordinary people dislike her. The orbit of ClintonWorld is huge and her White House will be able to command the loyalties of key figures across government. If you thought the IRS was bad under Obama, just wait. If you thought that the EPA was actively trying to destroy businesses that donate to Republicans, watch what happens when the FDA and every other government agency get in on the act.

And all of this will be implemented by an organization that engages in preemptive cover-ups overseen by a politician who had become notorious as a compulsive liar incapable of telling the truth decades ago. The American people will be lied to on a constant basis by a captive press whose strings are being pulled out of the White House. And the lies and abuses will be backed by an endless conveyor belt of new lies.

Obama’s greatest weakness was his impatience. Sooner or later he gets bored of everything. He grew bored of trying to be electable. He grew bored of backing the Muslim Brotherhood and switched to Iran. He grew bored of giving speeches, of regime change, of the entire Middle East and of his own talking points. Hillary Clinton however never gets bored. She never forgives or forgets. Whatever her flaws are, she thinks in the long term and she has the patience to creep slowly toward her ultimate objectives.

Hillary Clinton has not given up any of her objectives. She hasn’t grown bored of backing the Muslim Brotherhood. She doesn’t think that the Arab Spring was a bad idea. She won’t get tired of pushing each and every single one of her agendas, abroad and at home, until her very last day in office.

If you liked the Arab Spring, wait for Arab Spring II as Hillary Clinton goes after Egypt, Tunisia and any other country not controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood all over again. And when it comes to Israel, Hillary Clinton was more radically opposed to the Jewish State than her husband. She calls herself the “designated yeller” for her interactions with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Hillary Clinton’s Middle East foreign policy will be Obama’s disastrous policy on steroids.

The military is already crumbling under Obama. Anyone who thinks Hillary will offer some relief has forgotten the impact that her husband’s policies had on military readiness when he was in office. American soldiers will be expected to do more with less while receiving as little support from the White House when they come under fire as the fallen of Benghazi did from Hillary Clinton.

These are just a few selected excerpts from 2017, 2018, 2019 and onward if Republicans don’t start focusing on the welfare of the country instead of on settling personal scores within the party.

Today many Republicans hate each other more than they do Hillary Clinton. But no matter how ugly the Democratic race becomes, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters will never hate each more than they hate Republicans. The bitterly divided Republican field would do well to remember that fact.

Democrats have tried and failed to make Hillary Clinton president before. They are having trouble carrying her over the finish line now despite her huge lead in money, organization and publicity.

Only Republicans can make President Hillary Clinton a reality. (For more from the author of “President Hillary Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why the GOP May Only Have 75 Days Left to Live

maxresdefaultSome personal and brutally honest thoughts on where things stand, how we got here, etc. These thoughts are my own, and not reflective of any campaign (though I am a Ted Cruz supporter).

Months ago, before the voting started, I said and wrote this GOP primary would be a revolution because the system had betrayed too many people to get away with it this time. Either it would be Donald Trump’s French Revolution-style angry, secular mob, which does throws the bums out but produces too much untold collateral damage for a culture to recover from (and the French haven’t). Or Cruz’s values-driven American-style Revolution, where we return to first principles and actually try to win a national election on what’s in our platform for a change.

I said that there would be no middle ground. That if you didn’t want whatever Trump is serving, it was time to coalesce behind Cruz. Most conservatives did, which is why Cruz has gotten this far against all odds.

Sadly, some didn’t.

Some of them got caught up early in a cult of personality and now refuse to walk away; despite the fact Trump has abandoned his last pretend shred of conservatism. So they double-down instead, like the friend who blames you for telling him his girlfriend is cheating on him.

Another group of people are mostly principled folks who believe the GOP must be destroyed in order for conservatism to rise again. Therefore, they’re either supporting Trump or not supporting Cruz because they don’t want to see Humpty Dumpty put back together. These are the folks who find anything they can wrong with Cruz’s conservative bona fides, straining a gnat to swallow a camel despite Cruz’s exemplary Liberty Score® here at CR. Although I have been frustrated by these folks at times, I know many of these people and understand their impulse to burn the village to save it.

These are the Trump voters/sympathizers the GOP created out of deserved backlash. In another cycle, before they had felt this betrayed or were thinking more clearly, these voters would’ve been with Cruz on day one. And if Cruz doesn’t pull this thing out, they will regret it later when we reach Peak Trump in the fall and as a result, President Hillary. This is why St. Paul tells us “in your anger do not sin.”

Others are people who, if you polled them on the issues, are pretty conservative. But they watch Fox News or consume other media for information and vote mainly on name I.D. For example, look at how when Trump’s alleged insurgency wins a primary, no other non-establishment candidate win their primaries. Why — because these people vote strictly on name I.D. And when one candidate gets 60 times more media coverage than anyone else, these are the results you get.

This is how we repeatedly let the media that hates us — and that includes Fox — pick our nominee for us. When this is over, the movement needs to have a serious conversation about creating a real multi-media platform that includes television, and is capable of competing with Fox by the time 2020 begins. Otherwise, we’re always going to be treading water here.

Finally, there were those desperate for relevance, ratings and a seat at the table. So they became Trump’s sycophants. When this is over, either in Cleveland or November, these same people will have so tarnished their credibility they will attempt to rewrite history by claiming they weren’t really with Trump, but just trying to make the best of what wasn’t an ideal situation. The people will say that we had no real alternative to Trump so it was him or Jeb Bush, which is a lie, but these people are proven liars — and liars lie. Or they may just accept their newfound status, and shamelessly and immediately glom onto the first populist cult of personality for 2020. Doing the time warp again for another national TV slot or paycheck.

But we will remember them, because links on the Internet never forget. We don’t have to blacklist them, for they black-listed themselves. All we have to do is compile the names. They’ve already conveniently self-identified.

These groups, combined with the migration of a herd of messianic Obama voters now seeking salvation via this cycle’s megalomaniac (which I documented earlier this week), is Trump’s coalition.

This brings us to the rest of the Republican Party.

Both establishment and mainline Republicans never saw this coming because both the disease and its antidote confirm their systemic failure/sellout. For the establishment that stands for nothing other than corporatism to acknowledge that populist backlash would require an admission of their own fecklessness. However, if there’s one thing the establishment hates even more than populism, it’s conservatism because these people, too, are progressives (if they have any ideology). That hatred willfully blinded them to the only antidote to Trumpism and certain doom in the fall—Cruz’s campaign. Hence, they are now drowning in a pool of their own blood.

Meanwhile, mainline Republicans — who talk a good conservative game but then usually do the system’s bidding when push comes to shove — had all of their “unity candidates” soundly rejected by an electorate more interested in a reckoning. The talented Marco Rubio’s fall from grace, which included an embarrassing beat down in his own state, was their last gasp. Voters turned their backs on these candidates because mainline Republicans first turned on them when they tried to defund Obamacare, primary progressive GOP sellouts or attempt just about anything to save either the country or the Republican Party.

The mainliners looked down on us, and said “the media says we can’t win so why fight.” A self-fulfilling prophecy, because you lose 100% of the battles you don’t fight.

Unfortunately, these mainline Republicans failed to see the writing on the wall before it was too late. Pondering the lint in their navels about Cruz’s tone and lack of dimples. So Rubio stayed in the race at least two weeks longer than he should have, which handed Trump the delegate lead ever since. Furthermore, John Kasich remains in the race to this day for reasons only Allah knows. But what these two did do is stop Trump from ever facing a true challenge from a co-equal revolutionary before the voters.

Thankfully, mainline Republicans have one more chance.

While Trump still faces an uphill climb to 1,237, if Cruz doesn’t win Indiana (or at least split the delegates there) the perception will be that it’s over. Though there are still several states remaining that favor Cruz, that perception will be difficult to overcome. Therefore, Indiana becomes the new Wisconsin. And how did Cruz wallop Trump in Wisconsin? Mainline Republicans like Scott Walker got off the bench and got into the game, which expanded Cruz’s base of committed grassroots supporters.

And now in Indiana those same mainline Republicans will determine in the next week if they’d like to suffer the wrath of the Trump Cult now, or the wrath of the voters later in November. Because this presidential election is going to be determined between the Indiana primary and the convention. If Trump comes out of Cleveland the nominee, the GOP will lose and lose big in November for reasons I will explain in another column for another day.

Here’s the bottom line — the Republican Party has about 75 days to decide if it wants to continue to exist or not. (For more from the author of “Why the GOP May Only Have 75 Days Left to Live” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Further Down the Spiral: How Much Longer Can Obamacare Last?

hqdefaultAs United Health Care, one of the nation’s largest insurers, announced it would withdraw from the Obamacare exchanges, the insurance industry as a whole seems to be falling apart. A number of high profile insurers, including Blue Cross Blue Shield, have been laying the groundwork for sizable premium increases next year. A study released last month found that costs for insurers had risen by 22 percent, a clear indicator that consumer prices are going to have to go up to prevent more companies from following United Health’s lead.

None of this is especially surprising. Back when Obamacare was first proposed, smart people who understood how insurance worked looked at the model and, with eyebrows raised, pointed out the obvious flaw that would prevent the program from working: the insurance death spiral. The death spiral works like this: When the pool of people who sign up for health insurance is older and sicker than insurance companies expect, costs end up being higher than projected. Companies have to raise their prices (premiums) in order to make a profit. Higher prices cause some people to drop their plans as being too expensive, and the people most likely to do this are the ones who need insurance the least. This makes the remaining pool still more costly than before, and the cycle begins again, until nobody can afford insurance anymore.

Like clockwork, this is what we have seen under Obamacare. Every year since the law’s enactment, the Department of Health and Human Services has fallen short of its enrollment goals, despite increasing penalties for those who choose not to be insured. Premiums have risen predictably and deductibles are soaring as well. In 2015, the average deductible for a Bronze plan obtained on the exchanges was $5,181. In 2016, it was $6,850. That’s an increase of more than 25 percent in just one year. That’s not going to be a sustainable model, especially since a third of people signed up for Obamacare don’t have the money to cover their deductibles now.

As for premiums, according to a project by the Manhattan Institute, at least eight states have seen their premiums double under the Affordable Care Act since 2013. Meanwhile, median weekly earnings have only increased about seven percent since 2013, so it’s not as if people are going to be able to shoulder these costs with ease.

The obvious question is: How much longer can this go on? It’s impossible to know for sure, but what is certain is that the insurance law destined to shape Barack Obama’s legacy is collapsing faster than anyone ever imagined. United Health will not be the last insurer to cut and run from a clear money-losing situation. Others will follow, and this will only accelerate the death spiral. But the even more important question is: What happens next? Will the Left be able to leverage Obamcare’s unravelling into a single payer system, as they have always wanted to do, or will the folly of government planning be evident enough to the average person that we are able to implement some market based solutions to the nation’s health care woes? Given that the frontrunners for president in both parties support universal health care, it’s going to be an uphill battle. (For more from the author of “Further Down the Spiral: How Much Longer Can Obamacare Last?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top 10 Slam-Dunk Issues for Conservatives in 2016

4908231553_32d3f417efImagine a Republican Party that spent the remainder of the congressional session focusing on the most important current issues that distinguish themselves from the opposition? Imagine if they spent this election year demonstrating why Democrats cannot be trusted with our sovereignty, security, and society and how Republicans will provide a refreshing change?

Rather than run out the clock on boring and liberal legislation, here are 10 winning issues Republicans could pursue that will place Hillary Clinton and congressional Democrats on defense across the map:

Halt Refugee Resettlement

With the first Syrian refugees arriving now under an expedited process, it’s time for Republicans to make this election a referendum on Obama’s dangerous fundamental transformation. They should immediately move Rep. Brian Babin’s bill to shut off refugee resettlement until the Government Accounting Office (GAO) conducts a complete audit of the fiscal and security costs of the program. They should further pass legislation granting local governments the power to veto refugee resettlement in their jurisdiction. When Obama’s own FBI Director says they have no way of vetting these refugees, this should be a slam-dunk issue for Republicans to embarrass their opponents in critical states. Empowering local governments on such a critical issue will mobilize the grassroots for the general election like never before.

Davis-Oliver Interior Enforcement

How about true “comprehensive” immigration reform for a change? With endless cases of Americans being killed by criminal aliens, thanks in large part to sanctuary cities and Obama’s amnesty at the federal level, Republicans should immediately pass the Davis-Oliver bill. It addresses all levels of interior enforcement and clamps down on sanctuary cities. The bill already passed the House Judiciary Committee last session, but leadership has refused to move it to the floor. Let Democrats be the ones to run on placing the well being of criminal aliens ahead of their constituents.

Visa Tracking

Implementing biometric exit-entry at our ports of entry has been a ubiquitous talking point for both parties. It is so popular that even Democrats publicly express support for it, knowing they will never actually have to pass it. At a time when we have lost track of hundreds of thousands of people in this country on visas, why not force Democrats to own up to their promise? They should place a visa-tracking bill on the floors of both houses and make Democrats own any opposition to this common sense idea. Republicans should also call the Democrat bluff on the Visa Waiver Program and repeal it altogether, in place of their phony bill, which did nothing meaningful to protect against security risks. And for good measure? How about putting a moratorium on all long-term foreign visas until the GAO audits these programs from a fiscal and security standpoint?

Designate the Muslim Brotherhood a Terror Group

Even the British managed to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terror group. As we’ve explained before, no terror group poses more of a foundational threat to our homeland security and cultural cohesion than the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama has just announced a $270,000 grant for a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot. Republicans should bring the Cruz/Diaz-Balart bill to the floor of both houses. It has already passed the House Judiciary Committee. Let the Democrats go home to their constituents and defend a vote for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Stop Obama’s War on the Suburbs

One of the more “under the radar” manifestations of Obama’s fundamental transformation of America is HUD’s new “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule.” This program mandates suburban jurisdictions construct a certain number of “low income” housing. At the same time, HUD channels federal funds to crony left-wing organizations to move people out of the city into the suburbs, overwriting the zoning codes of the local governments. This unconstitutional executive action, cheered on by the lawless courts, violates property rights, federalism, and the true ideals of equal opportunity. It also represents a backdoor federal gerrymander and de facto eminent domain for ACORN-style organizations. Baltimore County, for example, has already been punished with a $30 million settlement to HUD and its cronies for not meeting the mandates on time. [Listen to Mark Levin’s radio segment on this settlement from last month.]

While Republicans run scared every time Democrats shout a racialist agenda in a crowded theater, this is one of the most promising political issues for Republicans. This hits close to home for the most important swing demographics in the upcoming election. Republicans win rural counties; Democrats win urban centers. The true battle is for the suburbs, and there is no better way to win over the suburbs than by attacking this issue head on.

Save Landlords from Criminals

Speaking of HUD, we reported earlier this month that the housing department was barring landlords from using criminal records as a criterion to deny rentals in many instances. This is another winning issue that hits home with local businesses who don’t want to face a lawsuit simply for keeping their tenants and property safe from dangerous criminals. Let Democrats stand with criminals over business owners.

Protect Religious Liberty

There is a raging fire across this country whereby private businesses and individuals are being targeted by the radical homosexual lobby because of their religious beliefs. We need federal civil rights-style legislation to protect private property rights and the right of conscience from states, courts, and individuals. This, at its core, is why we created the federal union. Religious liberty is still popular with the silent majority of the country, as witnessed by the results of the 2015 elections.

Shut Down Iran Deal

How about a bill blocking all new sanctions relief until Iran apologizes and pays reparations for the hundreds of U.S. soldiers they killed in Iraq? I wouldn’t want to be on the Democrat side of that debate.

Declassify the Full Report on Saudi Involvement in 9/11

It is widely believed that the 28 pages of classified material from the joint congressional inquiry report fully implicates the Saudi government in their involvement planning the 9/11 attacks. Former Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat and former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is one of the leading advocates for declassifying it. Let Obama and Hillary be forced to defend their Saudi friends.

Cut Funding for the Palestinians

This is an 80 percent issue. With the endless attacks on Israel, isn’t it time we stop sending $500 million of our taxpayer funds to the Palestinians every year? The Palestinian Accountability Act (H.R. 1337), sponsored by Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), would cut off funding for Hamas and the UN agency that helps them. Then confront the Democrats with endless ads showing them supporting Hamas with our money.

There are endless other ideas ideas that are simple to message, speak to our times, and resonate with the overwhelming majority of voters.

But won’t Obama veto them? Some might ask. Won’t Harry Reid filibuster this bills in the Senate?

Well, Republicans have already put their leverage on the budget process; all they have left is the ability to message bills and speak directly to the voters. They can either run out the clock of their time in control of Congress by passing meaningless or downright liberal bills that obfuscate the party divide. Or they can spend one 2-4 days on each one of these proposals and move them bicameraly, harness media attention, and have the members go back to their constituents on the weekend exposing the extremism of the Democrat Party for opposing common sense and bedrock ideals of sovereignty, security, and religious liberty.

The real question is: do they really want to win? (For more from the author of “Top 10 Slam-Dunk Issues for Conservatives in 2016” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top 5 Reasons Congress Should Reject Obama’s Climate Change Treaty

8216393551_acc6d4ef64_bSecretary of State John Kerry will join leaders from around the world to sign the Paris Protocol global warming agreement this Friday at the United Nations headquarters.

Here are the top five reasons Congress and the next administration should withdraw from the accord:

1) Higher energy bills, fewer jobs and a weaker economy.

The economic impact of domestic regulations associated with the Paris agreement will be severe. To meet America’s commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the administration will need to drive the cost of conventional fuels higher so households and businesses use less.

Because energy is a necessary input for almost all goods consumers buy, households are hit by higher prices multiple times over. Global warming regulations will increase electricity expenditures for a family of four by at least 13 percent a year. Cumulatively, they will cost American families over $20,000 of lost income by 2035 and impose a $2.5 trillion hit on the economy.

2) No impact on climate.

Regardless of one’s opinions on the degree to which climate change is occurring, regulations associated with the Paris accord will have no meaningful impact on the planet’s temperature.

Even if the government closed the doors to every businesses and CO2-emitting activity in the U.S., there would be less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures.

Even Kerry admitted during the negotiations last December that:

If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions— remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions— it wouldn’t’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.

Though the Paris Protocol is an international agreement, there is little reason to believe that the developing world (India, China, etc.) will prioritize reducing cargo dioxide emissions over using affordable energy that provides their citizens with a better standard of living.

Yes, China and other developing countries have serious air and water quality problems from industrial byproducts. But do not associate those problems with carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless and non-toxic. The focus of the Paris Protocol is to address catastrophic global warming. The developing world has more pressing tangible environmental challenges, which they’ll be able to address when they’re wealthier and have the necessary means to tackle them.

3) Massive taxpayer-funded wealth transfer for green initiatives.

An important part of the Paris agreement for the developing world is money. More specifically, other peoples’ money. In Nov. 2014, President Barack Obama also pledged to commit $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund, an international fund for green projects in the developing world.

The administration and proponents of a Green Climate Fund have repeatedly called for spending $100 billion per year between the United States and other countries in public and private financing to combat climate change.

In March, the Obama administration made a $500 million taxpayer-funded payment to the Green Climate Fund despite Congress never having authorized the funding.

The Green Climate Fund is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded wealth transfer from developed countries to developing ones. The fund will do little to promote economic growth in these countries but instead connect politically-connected companies with taxpayer dollars.

4) Avoids review and consent from elected officials.

The Paris agreement is in form, in substance, and in the nature of its commitments a treaty and should be submitted to the Senate for review and consent. The executive branch has shown contempt for the U.S. treaty-making process and the role of Congress, particularly the Senate.

As my colleague Steven Groves writes and explains in great detail, “The argument that the U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution “targets and timetables” are not legally binding and therefore the Paris Agreement is not a “treaty” requiring the advice and consent of the Senate simply has no basis in law.”

5) A top-down, government controlled push for economic transformation.

To achieve their global warming goals, international leaders want to control an economic transformation. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has said that:

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.

A top-down, concentrated effort to shift away from the use of coal, oil and natural gas will prevent millions from enjoying the basic energy needs Americans and the developed world takes for granted. In the industrialized world, the effects of moving away from conventional fuels have been devastating at times. Fuel poverty and pricier energy caused tens of thousands of deaths in Great Britain because families could not heat their homes. The world runs on traditional fuels because they are cost competitive and abundant. If and when any transformative shift away from these natural resources occurs, it will be driven by the market.

The Paris agreement, and U.S. participation in the entire framework convention on climate change is a raw deal for Americans. The next administration should not only withdraw from Paris but the entire United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (For more from the author of “Top 5 Reasons Congress Should Reject Obama’s Climate Change Treaty” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Cruz Could Beat Clinton

6236460755_af70e60869_bThe main reason Cruz will be competitive for the presidency is the fundamental reality of the 2016 election. With the backdrop of a disaffected electorate and a deeply polarizing president leaving of­fice after two terms, any Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­ee be­ne­fits from be­ing the can­did­ate of change. Demo­crats are also deal­ing with their own deep­en­ing in­tra-party di­vide—one that, if it wer­en’t for the head­line-grabbing rise of Don­ald Trump, would be the de­fin­ing theme of the 2016 elec­tions . . .

Cruz brings some un­her­al­ded as­sets to the race, even as a weak­er-than-usu­al Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­ee.

First, he has a lot more op­por­tun­ity to re­ori­ent his cam­paign mes­sage for a gen­er­al elec­tion than Clin­ton has in re­fur­bish­ing her run-down im­age. Cruz crit­ics as­sume his me­diocre fa­vor­ab­il­ity num­bers will get even worse in a gen­er­al elec­tion, but his pub­lic stand­ing is bound to im­prove if Re­pub­lic­ans rally around him as the nom­in­ee. And if Cruz is so power-hungry, as his crit­ics claim, it’s easy to ima­gine him mak­ing the ne­ces­sary com­prom­ises to win a pres­id­en­tial elec­tion. He’s nev­er go­ing to be likable, but he has op­por­tun­it­ies to soften his rough edges . . .

Second, the polling points to a com­pet­it­ive gen­er­al elec­tion between Clin­ton and Cruz. Na­tion­al polls show the race with­in 3 points (ac­cord­ing to the Real­Clear­Polit­ics av­er­age), with reput­able state polls show­ing Cruz tied with her in blue-state Wis­con­sin and Pennsylvania. Cruz con­sist­ently runs far more com­pet­it­ively against Clin­ton than Trump does. Her num­bers have been con­sist­ently weak des­pite a fairly civil primary cam­paign in which Bernie Sanders has mostly stuck to is­sues, and avoided rais­ing ques­tions about her per­son­al in­teg­rity.

Third, Cruz is the most likely Re­pub­lic­an to hold to­geth­er a fray­ing co­ali­tion at the Clev­e­land con­ven­tion. He’s locked down the tra­di­tion­al con­ser­vat­ive base, he has half-hearted back­ing from the es­tab­lish­ment (thanks to Trump), and, not long ago, he was con­sidered the clear second-choice can­did­ate for Trump back­ers. Trump would di­vide the party, and nom­in­at­ing a “white knight” can­did­ate would risk ali­en­at­ing the clear ma­jor­ity of GOP voters who have backed out­sider, anti­es­tab­lish­ment can­did­ates this year. (Read more from “Why Cruz Could Beat Clinton” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judges Continue to Steal Our Sovereignty

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAAs the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case of Obama’s executive amnesty today, it’s important to remember that even if there is enough remaining sanity on that bench to uphold the 5th Circuit Court’s injunction against the illegal action, in the long run the courts are a much bigger liability than asset. And the 5th Circuit also happens to be the only remaining originalist panel on the federal appeals level.

Our states, and even the federal government, have been rendered impotent in defending against illegal immigration and violent drug cartels. The legal profession across the board has crowned itself king of our sovereignty and has been empowered to litigate every single deportation. Whether it’s ICE or state law enforcement, they have to spend endless hours and resources defending every last deportation in court. Even in the best case scenario (for conservatives), law enforcement gets a hearing before a judge that still upholds the law, but are deterred from further pursuing enforcement because of the endless judicial trench warfare. In the worst case scenario, the judges “overturn” the laws.

Here are two more examples from this past week:

States Cannot Punish Those Who Harbor Illegal Alien Gang Members

In 2015, confronted with the massive surge in Central Americans at the southeastern corner of the state, Texas officials passed House Bill 11. This bill was designed to combat human trafficking by slapping criminal penalties on those who encourage illegal aliens to enter the country or harbor immigrants as members of a street gang. But the George Soros-funded Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) filed a lawsuit on grounds that the Texas law is preempted by federal law, even though Texas was upholding federal law.

Last Thursday, Judge David Allan Ezra of the Western District of Texas issued an injunction on three sections of the state’s law. He based his decision, in part, on the specious “preemption” argument posited by the six liberals on the Supreme Court in the 2011 case involving the Arizona law. But as Scalia so clearly articulated in his dissent, states have full authority to restrict illegal immigration so long as that action is not expressly prohibited by federal statutes. In all of these cases, such action either complements or adds to federal laws. “The State has the sovereign power to protect its orders more rigorously if it wishes, absent any valid federal prohibition,” wrote Justice Scalia in 2012. “The Executive’s policy choice of lax federal enforcement does not constitute such a prohibition.”

Scalia further noted that immigration laws were never designed to hamper the states. “The naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it,” wrote Scalia in that same dissent. His voice will surely be missed in today’s fight between Texas and the Obama administration over whether the state has standing to fight executive amnesty.

ACLU Sues to Release Thousands of Illegals into Our Communities

As radical as the Obama administration is with regard to suspending deportations, the legal profession is working to invalidate the few remaining enforcement measures ICE has retained. Last Tuesday, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit in Minnesota against ICE, claiming they are detaining thousands of illegal aliens for too long. In a disturbing trend of abusing our asylum laws, thousands of them are claiming fear of persecution under the Convention Against Torture protection if they are returned home. Ironically, the only reason they are being detained and not deported is precisely because our system is clogged with so many aliens gratuitously offered a day in court to overturn their deportation. Again, our own generosity is used against us and our nation’s sovereignty.

According to Law360, the ACLU also filed a class action suit in California “to force the federal government to consider a detainee’s ability to pay when setting bond in immigration cases.” Illegal immigrants have no right to remain in the country, yet courts are increasingly granting them a right to bail, even though they represent the consummate flight risk. The ACLU is now feasting off of years of lawless court decisions to further steal our sovereignty. Even if the federal courts decline to side with the ACLU this time, they will easily make the jump within a few years to invalidate all of the detentions. There is a voracious army of immigration lawyers prepared to litigate every last illegal alien into citizenship.

Irrespective of how the Supreme Court rules in the DAPA case, conservatives would be wise to declare war on judicial amnesty, which will make executive amnesty look like child’s play. (For more from the author of “Judges Continue to Steal Our Sovereignty” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bernie Sanders Versus the Tenth Commandment

24331846595_95d5ebf7c0_bBernie Sanders, with the regularity of a steam engine, has pounded away for months at the injustice, the wickedness, even the racism of “income inequality.” If ever there was a Johnny one-note on the American political scene, he is it. Yet almost nobody, and least of all his hapless opponent Hillary Clinton, has thought to call into question the ethical validity or inflammatory character of the covetousness this political slogan urges upon the public, with a recklessness that has visited untold calamities upon Europe. (Among politicians, Charlie Rangel of New York did have the temerity to say, “OK, income inequality… But does he [Sanders] have anything else to say?”) Has religious illiteracy now reached the point in America where the Tenth Commandment has been so entirely forgotten that the most blatant repudiations of it go unnoticed? Here it is, for the sake of those who have forgotten (or never knew):

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” — Exodus 20:17.

This last of the ten commandments, as Biblical commentators have often observed, differs from previous “negative” ones in that it prohibits not an action (murder, adultery, theft, false witness) but a state of mind—covetousness—that is at the root of most sins against our neighbors. No doubt John Stuart Mill, a far more literate liberal than Bernie Sanders, had it in mind when he complained that “’thou shalt not’ preponderates unduly over ‘thou shalt’” in Biblical morality.

The ethical wisdom of this commandment has all too often been demonstrated by the way in which covetousness expresses itself in the murderous character of “negative” politics, which directs the wrath of the covetous against a particular group. In Sanders’ typical stump speech, it is usually “Wall Street” or “the one percent.” In the rhetoric of the “Occupy Wall Street” and other “Occupy…” mobs that Sanders admires, it gets a bit more specific about attaching a name to “the one percent.” But most specific of all is Noam Chomsky, whom Sanders has praised as “a very vocal and important voice [sic] in the wilderness of intellectual life in America…a person who [sic] I think we’re all very proud of.” Chomsky, who has publicly endorsed his friend Sanders for the Democratic nomination, has strong views about just which group of Americans should be named as the chief target of an aggressive campaign of class warfare against “the rich and privileged” whom Sanders is daily berating. “Antisemitism,” Chomsky has declared, “is no longer a problem, fortunately. It’s raised, but it’s raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That’s why antisemitism is becoming an issue.” To this does covetousness very often lead. Is it even remotely possible that Sanders doesn’t know? (Read more from “Bernie Sanders Versus the Tenth Commandment” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.