No Conviction, No Courage: The GOP’s Treacherous Deal

/6 Comments/in , /by

By Alan Keyes. The GOP governor of Georgia, Nathan Deal has, as Bryan Fischer wrote “has vetoed a religious liberty bill which is about as mild a bill as you can imagine. It would have protected pastors from being forced to perform sodomy-based weddings, and protected churches and other faith-based organizations from being forced to rent out their facilities for wedding ceremonies which celebrate the infamous crime against nature.” Fischer see Deal’s actions as an example of “how we are losing America: one cowardly governor at a time.”

Fischer is understandably outraged by Gov. Deal’s brazen betrayal of the moral conservative voters who supported him trusting that “a Republican and self-identified Southern Baptist” would support the Georgia Legislature’s to thwart ongoing efforts by homosexuals to force Americans to abandon their Biblical faith in God’s benevolent will for human procreation. In this respect, Deal’s action is deeply treacherous. But is it cowardly?

Deal certainly appears to lack the courage of his convictions. But this is only if we assume that, on issues of Christian moral principle like gay marriage, he ever had the convictions ascribed to him. Georgians should be the last people to forget the fact that Jimmy Carter’s apparently sincere self-identification as a Southern Baptist did not prevent him from accepting the Democrat Party’s obdurate stand in support of the so-called “right” of parents to procure the murder of their nascent offspring. It has not prevented self-identified Christians of other denominations (including both Anglican and Roman Catholics) from rejecting God’s plainly stated Biblical prohibition against male homosexuality.

So, given the experience of at least forty years, it makes no sense to trust that an elected official will stand firm on issues of moral principle simply because he or she self-identifies as a Christian. Is the Republican Party label any more trustworthy in this regard? Then Governor Sarah Palin appointed former Planned Parenthood board member Morgan Christen to Alaska’s Supreme Court. Of the unrepentant pro-abortion Christen, Palin wrote, “I have every confidence that Judge Christen has the experience, intellect, wisdom and character to be an outstanding Supreme Court Justice.” (Read more from “No Conviction, No Courage: The GOP’s Treacherous Deal” HERE)

_____________________________________________

Ted Cruz: Anti-Gay Marriage Crusader? Not So Fast

By Heidi Przybyla. Senator Ted Cruz, who wants to be the Republican Party’s lead crusader against gay marriage, ducked the opportunity to play a critical role in turning back the movement in its infancy.

In 2003, the year Cruz became Texas’s top government litigator, the state lost a crucial case as the U.S. Supreme Court decided that state laws banning homosexual sex as illegal sodomy were unconstitutional. The decision in Lawrence v. Texas paved the way for the court’s consideration of gay marriage. “The final victory for gay rights was foreshadowed when the court decided Lawrence v Texas,” predicted Walter Dellinger, a former U.S. assistant attorney general and solicitor general who’s argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court. . .

As Texas solicitor general when the Lawrence v. Texas case came before the Supreme Court, Cruz was “very much in the middle of all this drama,” said Mitchell Katine, who was local counsel to the two gay men at the center of the case, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner. . .Yet “Cruz remained absolutely silent,” Katine said. The case remained assigned instead to a Harris County district attorney.

Through a spokesman, Cruz said he didn’t step in because the case was criminal in nature and his office primarily handled civil cases. Yet six of the nine cases Cruz argued before the nation’s highest court were criminal in nature. . .

Interviews with a dozen former fellow law students, professors, lawyers and government officials show that his lack of involvement in the Lawrence case is part of a broader narrative about the Texas senator’s relationship with the gay community: While he has consistently opposed gay rights, he has often stayed away from the front lines of the fight and even courted gay donors. (Read more from this article HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The GOP Primary – Whoever Wins…We Lose

/32 Comments/in , /by

I have bad news. Hillary Clinton is going to be the next President of the United States. Looking at the likely potential outcomes of the GOP primary, none of them show a probable path for GOP victory.

Scenario #1 – Trump Wins the Nomination

Over a third of the Republican Party says they will never pull the lever for Donald Trump in the general election. If these numbers hold true, Trump cannot win. Even if Trump manages to convince two-thirds of Republican holdouts to jump aboard the Trump Train, the remaining ten percent of holdouts would still be enough to scuttle Trump’s Presidential dreams. Some have argued that what Trump loses in Republicans he will gain in independents and Democrats, but there’s no evidence for that. In fact, 54% of likely voters of all political stripes would never vote for Donnie. To win, Trump would have to convince people adamantly against him to pull a complete 180, and that rarely happens. Head-to-head polling contests between Trump and Hillary also predict doom. Trump has lost all ten of the last ten match-ups against Hillary never coming within five points of her lead.

Trump stands no significant chance of winning.

Scenario #2 – Cruz Wins the Nomination

In a fair contest, Cruz has a significantly better chance of winning against Hillary. Of the last ten head-to-head match ups, Cruz has won four. However, Cruz cannot secure the primary via statge delegates, so Cruz’s only hope is a contested convention, but contested conventions have always been the playground of the GOP establishment, a group which despises Ted Cruz. The establishment could allow the contested convention to proceed with a level playing field or back Cruz since he has the best chance of winning the general election, but it’s also possible Obama could become a hardcore conservative tomorrow and fight for the repeal of Obamacare. Sadly, none of these possibilities seem likely.

Even if Cruz does win, we still have to address the elephant in the room or perhaps more aptly the elephant who will leave the room. Back in February Trump disavowed his promise that he would back the eventual GOP nominee. It’s not hard to imagine Trump running third party either out of spite, ego or delusion, and if he does, 80% of Trump supporters will break from the GOP thereby scuttling a Cruz presidency.

Scenario #3 – The Establishment Picks a Nominee

Since both Trump and Cruz are anti-establishment candidates in their own ways, it would hardly be surprising if the GOP rigged the system for a candidate they could more easily control. John Kasich Jeb Bush, Scott Walker or Paul Ryan could all be tapped for the role.

If you combine the Republican support for Trump and Cruz, you see that a massive 72% of the GOP is saying that they are sick and tired of the establishment nonsense. Both sides will be infinitely ticked if their candidates are tossed aside for a puppet President. The base will see that the GOP doesn’t care about the choice of it’s constituents, and massive fractures will appear in the party as both Trump and Cruz supporters jump the sinking GOP ship.

Conclusion

Hillary will almost certainly win, but beyond just this election, this could easily be the end of the GOP for there’s no likely scenario that results in anything other than a fractured party. (For more from the author of “The GOP Primary – Whoever Wins…We Lose” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

It’s Only Trump

/3 Comments/in , /by

The only question for Republicans is: Which candidate can win states that Mitt Romney lost?

Start with the fact that, before any vote is cast on Election Day, the Democrats have already won between 90 and 98 percent of the black vote and 60 to 75 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote. Unless Republicans run the table on the white vote, they lose.

If there’s still hope, it lies with Trump and only Trump. Donald Trump will do better with black and Hispanic voters than any other Republican. But it’s with white voters that he really opens up the electoral map.

A Republican Party that wasn’t intent on committing suicide would know that. But Stuart Stevens, the guy who lost a winnable presidential election in 2012, says it’s impossible for Republicans to get one more white vote — and the media are trying to convince the GOP that he’s right.

Stevens says Romney tapped out every last white voter and still lost, so he says Republicans are looking for “the Lost Tribes of the Amazon” hoping to win more white votes: “In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and won a landslide victory of 44 states. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 59 percent of whites and lost with 24 states.” (Read more from “It’s Only Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Liberal ‘Christian’ Immigration Policies Dehumanize EVERYONE

/2 Comments/in , /by

People have long made fun of me for treating my beagles like humans — feeding them wild salmon, taking them to top-line doctors, getting them ultrasounds and liver meds, buffalo treats and gator meat and letting them sleep in bed. To which I’ve always answered, “It’s my money. Go get a job and earn your own.”

But of course I don’t treat my dogs exactly as if they were human. When Franz Josef got sick with bladder cancer, and the medicine stopped working, I agonized for days, said my goodbyes, then slowly fed him a whole rack of barbecued ribs. I took him to the vet, where I stroked his velvet head as the medicine smoothed his path to dreamless sleep.

That is not how I treated my parents when each of them died of cancer. Instead, I sat with them as they agonized, prayed with them, and brought the priest to help them repent for all their sins. Some would say that Franzi got off easy, that people should be treated as “mercifully” as animals, and “granted” quick, painless deaths. Since cancer strikes everyone in my family, it will surely claim me some day, so I am tempted to agree.

But I can’t, as a Christian, admit that human beings should be treated the same as pets, intentionally killed to spare them needless, useless suffering. Because we know that human suffering isn’t necessarily useless. Jesus’ pains on the cross were not a meaningless tragedy, and if we unite ours with his, they aren’t either. We should diminish them all we can, and accept what is left as the price of human dignity, the tax we pay for sin — our own, or other people’s. It’s a mind-tangling mystery, but it’s better than the alternative.

Here’s the alternative, as described by author Richard Weikart in his powerful new book The Death of Humanity:

The University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne has stated, “Although it’s seen by nearly everyone as humane — and even moral — to end the life of our terminally ill pets, it’s regarded as murder to make the same decision for ourselves.”

He scoffs at the idea that humans are qualitatively different from, or have greater value than, animals. However, if you read more of Coyne, you find that he embraces many moral stances typical of many American progressives. He would be horrified if I suggested that we round up all the homeless people in a city, sterilize them, imprison them until someone comes to take them home with them, and if no one comes for them, euthanize them. Yet this is how we treat stray dogs.

And it’s how too many Christians, including some of our leaders, are treating Muslim immigrants. We linger over pictures of cute little Arab kids, or carefully posed shots of exotic women in beautiful headscarves — and avert our eyes from angry, self-righteous mobs of military-age men thronging radical mosques in London, Brussels, Paris, Frankfurt. We suppress the obvious questions: “What on earth are those people doing there?” “What reckless fools let them in?” And (most important): “How can we make them go back where they belong?”

Instead, we focus on the brown, puppy eyes of the children, the sad faces of the women, the anecdotes of good, decent Muslims — like the store owner in Glasgow, who said “Happy Easter” to his Christian customers on Facebook. We don’t read the sequel, which reports that this gesture got him stabbed to death by a man from the local mosque.

We want to feel good about ourselves. We want to be congratulated as “tolerant,” “open” and “cosmopolitan.” We don’t want to be labeled, judged, maybe even harassed by our “tolerant” governments. We want to bask in the fuzzy, cozy, pseudo-Christian sentiment that all religions are at root the same, once you bat down the “extremists.”

Now, all dogs are at root basically the same. The behavioral differences between a Basset Hound and a German Short-Haired Pointer are finally superficial. Virtually all dogs, if they’re raised well, if they’re not abused, will respond with warmth and gratitude. It’s the humanitarian heresy that pretends that humans are just like dogs.

Regardless of what they say they believe, of the habits their cultures encourage, of the actual, literal words of the sacred texts of their religion…. We Westerners know better. A radicalized Muslim — that is, one who reads the Koran and takes it at face value — may say that he thinks that Jews are descended from monkeys and pigs. He may even believe that he believes it’s right to stone homosexuals to death, or marry girls at the age of nine, or “kill the unbeliever wherever you find him.”

But surely he doesn’t really think that, the progressive thinking goes. Not really. A few years of Western welfare checks, some shiny community centers paid for by local taxpayers, and a police force that firmly punishes native citizens if they complain about immigration, and just you wait and see! Those “angry” Muslims will be smiling, wagging their little tails and eating right out of your hand.

How fitting that elites in Belgium treat religious people this way, since their country is one of the euthanasia capitals of the world. They see every person as a pet.

I have distilled here the whole theory, in all its sophistication, that underlies Western multiculturalism and “Christian” support for mass immigration into a welfare state. That’s it, folks.

Are there useful things Christians and the West can do for Muslims back in their own troubled countries? Yes indeed. But only if we take them seriously as fellow human beings — which means that when they threaten or denounce us, we stand up and guard against them. (For more from the author of “How Liberal ‘Christian’ Immigration Policies Dehumanize EVERYONE” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Raging Fire Against Religious Liberty

/1 Comment/in , /by

There are times in history when American patriots need to call a time out and bring all hands on deck to deal with a raging fire. We are now living through one of those times.

Imagine if a prophet were to approach Sam Adams before the revolution and warn that in less than 250 years state governors would ban official travel to states that don’t allow men into women’s bathrooms?

Imagine if someone told James Madison, the man who referred to religious conscience as the “most sacred of property,” that individuals would be forced to use their own property and livelihood to service something that violates their consciousness and is condemned by every major religion?

Our founders could never have imagined a person’s private property becoming the national property of a pagan inquisition, and federal and state governments, which were intended to encourage religious virtue (although not coerce it), serve as a conduit for compulsory servitude to the idols of hedonism. Yet, that is exactly what is happening. And frankly, there has not been enough discussion about this existential threat among conservatives even in the presidential race.

Here are just three examples of the raging fire from the past week:

1. Last week, during oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell, in which the Little Sisters of the Poor are suing the federal government for coercing them into covering abortifacients in employee health insurance plans, Justice Sonia Sotomayor demonstrated the following illiteracy of fundamental rights:

Because every believer that’s ever come before us, including the people in the military, are saying that my soul will be damned in some way. I’m not naysaying that that is a very substantial perceived personal burden by them. But if that’s always going to be substantial, how will we ever have a government that functions? How will we ever have anything that the government can demand people do in objecting…that won’t be a problem?

Gee, how will our government ever function if they can’t coerce private businesses to cover abortions or sex change operations with their own private health insurance compensation plan? The real question is how can the government and society function if they can coerce such activity? As John Witherspoon warned, “There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage.”

Perhaps Sotomayor should go back and study the impetus for our founding and read the Pennsylvania Charter of Liberty:

That all persons living in this province, who confess and acknowledge the one Almighty and eternal God, to be the Creator, Upholder and Ruler of the world; and that hold themselves obliged in conscience to live peaceably and justly in civil society, shall, in no ways, be molested or prejudiced for their religious persuasion, or practice, in manners of faith and worship, nor shall they be compelled, at any time, to frequent or maintain any religious worship, place or ministry whatever.

Or perhaps she would do herself a favor by studying Madison:

The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right… It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.

Or maybe she should read the speech of Sam Adams in Philadelphia just weeks before the start of the revolution when he framed the fight for independence as a “contest” over whether “there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty.”

After studying our founding, hopefully this wayward justice will not treat the issues of religious liberty so callously.

2. In one of the few acts of sanity by a Republican controlled state government, the GOP legislature in North Carolina passed a law preventing cities like Charlotte from enacting ordinances allowing men who say they are women to use female bathrooms. But now the entire homo-fascist mafia is coming after the state. The governor of New York has banned state officials from travelling to North Carolina on official business. The ACLU is suing the state in federal court, believing it is the role of the courts to overturn the democratically elected legislature and redefine the definition of gender from the bench. Meanwhile, the state Attorney General is refusing to defend the law in court.

3. Yesterday, Georgia governor Nathan Deal announced his intent to veto a religious liberty bill, which, among other things, would have prevented the state from forcing religious leaders to officiate gay weddings or coerce religious institutions to engage in activity or hire individuals that violate their religious beliefs. It’s now clear that even most Republicans are unwilling to defend the most foundational of unalienable rights.

What is clear from all of these events is that the status quo is not working. We cannot rely upon the states to defend religious liberty. We certainly cannot come crying to the courts who have largely been responsible for creating this nightmare by flipping the concept of fundamental rights on its head. It’s time for federal legislation, in the mold of civil rights legislation, preventing the state or federal governments from coercing an individual to use his private property or business in a way that violates his religious conscience.

While states have wide latitude to regulate activities within their jurisdictions, a state has no right to violate the preamble of the Declaration, rooted in religious liberty and property rights, the same way they had no right to usurp the liberties of African-American citizens. Congress must also strip the courts of the power to adjudicate any case overturning religious liberty protections. At its core, this is why our founder created a federal union – to better secure the blessings of liberty from states that would infringe upon them. As George Washington told a group of Quakers in 1789, “[T]he liberty enjoyed by the people of these states of worshiping Almighty God agreeably to their conscience, is not only among the choicest of their blessings, but also of their rights.”

However, whereas our founders feared individual theocratic states coercing individuals to service a particular religion with their private property, they never fathomed a day when the government itself would be run by secularists and force individuals to worship the pagan inquisition. They always envisioned religion as part and parcel of our national fabric. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that, “The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.” And that “[F]rom the earliest settlement of the emigrants, politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved.” He warned that “[D]espotism can do without faith but liberty cannot.”

Nobody is even asking for government to downright promote the spirit of religion in a voluntary way; we want government to at least refrain from coercing individuals into secularism with their own private businesses. As early as 1988, Reagan explained what we were up against:

To those who cite the first amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions and everyday life, may I just say: The first amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.

Long before transgendered bathrooms, the redefining of marriage and gender, Kim Davis being thrown in jail for being a Christian, and involuntary servitude for homosexual weddings, Reagan warned that “the most essential element of our defense of freedom is our insistence on speaking out for the cause of religious liberty.” The time has come for our leaders to treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves. (For more from the author of “The Raging Fire Against Religious Liberty” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why I Support Trump — and Resent the Elites Trying to Destroy Him

/13 Comments/in , /by

Let me say up front that I am a lifelong Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement.

I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.

First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the co-author of the law that the decision overturned . . .

Second, it doesn’t appear to me that conservatives calling on people to reject Trump have any idea what it actually means to be a “conservative.” The word seems to have become a brand that some people attach to a set of partisan policy preferences, rather than the set of underlying principles about government and society it once was. (Read more from “Why I Support Trump — and Resent the Elites Trying to Destroy Him” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Could Trump Turn New York Red?

/1 Comment/in , /by

Donald Trump has made it clear that he thinks he can win New York in a general election match-up against Hillary Clinton, the former senator from the Empire State.

Trump, the billionaire businessman who resides in New York City and has a number of properties dotting the streets of the Big Apple, has repeatedly said he thinks the traditional blue state is very much in play . . .

For better or worse, the Republican front-runner is associated with Gotham. Even Republican rival Ted Cruz (R-TX) has tried to define Trump as a Yankee with “New York values,” while this week labeling him a “New York bully.”

Democrats insist there’s no way the state will go red in 2016.

They say Trump’s outsized presence in New York — which includes his business deals, relationships and branding on buildings like the famed Trump Tower — will not be enough to deliver the liberal state to Republicans. (Read more from “Could Trump Turn New York Red?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Could This Pastor’s VP Pick for Trump Help Defeat America’s Jezebel?

/26 Comments/in , /by

One pastor in Iowa recently suggested that despite, or rather, because of the bitter rancor among Evangelical Christians over Donald Trump that one particular running mate could persuade naysayers to actually support Trump.

Who is this Hawkeye pastor and why should anyone care about his opinion?

In 2012, conservative commentator, Iowan Steve Deace, a #NeverTrump and Cruz supporter, identified the most effective “super-operatives” in Iowan politics. One, he wrote was an “unassuming pastor” of Walnut Creek Church, who “could very well be the most powerful man you’ve never heard of.”

“He could easily mean the difference between victory and defeat for a candidate in a caucus or straw poll … [making him] a formidable player in the Iowa Caucus. But what makes him dangerous to opposing campaigns is the fact that you don’t see him (or his army) coming until it’s too late. Just ask Sam Brownback and Tom Vlassis.”

What Deace doesn’t mention is that both former Sen. Rick Santorum and Gov. Mike Huckabee could not have won Iowa in 2008 and 2012, respectively, without this pastor’s influence.

I met the most powerful man no one has ever heard of when I also first met former presidential candidate and Gov. Mike Huckabee. I joined roughly 100 pastors to retrace the steps of Pope John Paul II and several other leaders to record how faith (in whom or what) influences every single political decision ever made. My conversations with these pastors marked the beginning of incredibly valuable friendships and confidential insight into the world of politics and pastors.

Pastor and author Terry Amann, who endorsed Mike Huckabee for president, suggests that Huckabee is the best vice presidential choice for Trump. He argues:

“Four years ago there were many people saying they would not vote for Romney because he was a Mormon. Instead of reaching out to evangelicals he tried to keep them at arms length. It was reported that two weeks before the election Romney met with evangelical leader Ralph Reed to utilize his database of 17 million evangelicals. But it was too late. Trump has a Romney problem, though not necessarily for the same reasons.

“There are many voices that say they will never vote for Trump. This is why Trump needs to have a VP selection that will put evangelicals at ease. The logical choice is Mike Huckabee. He has a good relationship with Trump. Huckabee has executive experience without the taint of Washington. He is sober-minded and an exceptional communicator. He has had high numbers in favorability polls and he is a known and vetted commodity.

“And, Huckabee has been tested by the Clinton machine for over three decades, and won.”

I reached out to many pastors nationwide to find out if they agreed. Would they vote for Trump, assuming there is no third-party candidate, as opposed to Hillary Clinton? Or would they not vote at all?

The majority of pastors, roughly two-thirds, affirmed that a Huckabee vice-presidential running mate would make it much easier to vote for Trump. Nearly all said they would vote for Trump, and for anyone other than Hillary Clinton.

Rev. Brad Atkins, Senior Pastor of Powdersville First Baptist Church in S.C., best articulated what the majority of pastors said about voting: “To not vote is not an option. As U.S. citizens it is our duty to be a part of what makes our nation so great, freedom. Freedom to vote, freedom to campaign, and even freedom to hope against all hope that there is still time for a miracle.”

Atkins, who supports Cruz, emphasized that he’d “love to hear how Huckabee [would be] able to reconcile such a ticket in his heart and mind.”

Another Cruz supporter, Rev. Thomas Peetz of Word of Life Christian Fellowship, in Concord, N.H., told me, “If Mr. Trump is the nominee and Mike Huckabee his running mate, I would vote for them in a heartbeat. What’s the alternative? A third term of the Obama administration? No thank you.”

And from Las Vegas, Nev., Kevin Boyd, Sr. Pastor of TCM International explained, “Let me be clear, up to this point I have not voted for Trump or promoted him whatsoever. He is obviously not what any of us had in mind, but I would support him, and so would a very large percentage of my church.

“I would definitely vote for Mr. Trump if he’s the GOP nominee before I would vote for Hillary Clinton or waste my vote by writing in another name. The Republican Party is still the party of Life & Traditional Marriage (although, there seems to be a continued rejection within the party of true conservatism). Actually, it is this continued moving within the GOP towards the center/Left that has made a President Trump a very real possibility.

“Having Gov. Huckabee as his VP would make it much more palatable… and quite frankly… be an answer to prayer! This would also solidify my current belief that Mr. Trump is willing to surround himself and be counseled by truly conservative and godly men and women.”

Yet, Executive Director of the Baptist Convention of Iowa, Tim Lubinus, disagrees. And his perspective mirrors that of many #NeverTrump evangelicals. He told me:

“A Trump/Huckabee ticket will change my opinion of Huckabee. Even though we all knew for least a month before the Iowa Caucuses that Huckabee would not prevail this cycle, he has failed to use his considerable God-given talent, skills, and reputation to support the only conservative candidate with a path to the nomination. So far Huckabee seems to be using his resources to undermine rather than support Ted Cruz. If Huckabee joins with a candidate who undermines many of the values that Huckabee claims that he holds, he will make a Hillary Clinton presidency more likely and only confirm my fear that he has made a deal to compromise himself, our Constitution, and our country for a hellish stew of power, fame, and greed.

“Right now, my plan is for neither to get my vote. Anyone who really doesn’t want Hillary to be president should do everything they can to support Ted Cruz.”

While the responses I received are too numerous to cite, perhaps the very best perspective is one offered by J. Matt Barber, Assoc. Dean and Professor of Law at Liberty University. Barber asks if God’s chosen for America, “a King Cyrus? A man, or woman, who has yet to display through word or deed a heart broken and a will surrendered – a life marked by humility and repentance? [If so,] please surround him with men like Daniel.”

Could America’s next leader, Barber asks, be another Saul of Tarsus? If so, he pleads, “Break his/her heart and give us a President Paul. If done before the eyes of the world, oh what a testament to the transformative power of Christ!” He also asks God to spare America from its “just deserts – an unrighteous leader, an Ahab or a Jezebel.”

According to Amann, “When people say to me ‘Never Trump’ I ask them if that opinion would change if Huckabee were on the ticket. The answer is almost always positive.

“What’s more, is that Huckabee understands what the Republican Establishment does not–that there is a revolution underway and Trump is leading it. Trump would do well to add a general like Huckabee to the ticket sooner than later, and then, together, we can say, ‘#Never Clinton’.”

(Listen to a recent interview with the author:)

If these pastors’ responses bear any indication, Huckabee might be a sure bet to help elect a Cyrus or a Paul, rather than a worse successor of America’s current nemesis, Ahab: an evil queen Jezebel. (For more from the author of “Could This Pastor’s vp Pick for Trump Help Defeat America’s Jezebel?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Coming Trump Landslide

/6 Comments/in , /by

Republican insiders say he can’t win . . .

He’s also dangerous, they say. He is “divisive.” He is alienating U.S. allies and encouraging U.S. enemies, the naysayers claim . . .

May I, as a Ted Cruz supporter, just step in here for a minute and explain why Donald Trump, as Republican nominee for president, will win a landslide election victory over Hillary and actually be a welcome alternative to the kind of leadership America has experienced for the last 27 years?

I don’t care what the national polls say now about a matchup between Trump and Clinton. I am old enough to remember vividly what the polls between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter looked like in 1980 at this point in the presidential campaign. They suggested Reagan had no chance to win. He trailed Carter in the polls by double digits. He went on to carry 44 states that year, including New York and California – 49 states four years later.

That is very close to what I expect Trump to do to Hillary if he becomes the nominee. (Read more from “The Coming Trump Landslide” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FBI May Seek Immunity for Huma to Nail Hillary, Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That

/11 Comments/in , /by

Accomplished author Ed Klein, who has an superb track record for unearthing scoops regarding the Clinton Crime Family (which is the term they prefer, I hear) has another breaking report regarding Hillary’s illegal bathroom email server. Which was, I understand, a magnet for both spies and flies.

As context, please recall Hillary’s response to the question she was asked during a recent Democrat debate, to wit, whether she would step down if indicted for various crimes related to her email server, mishandling classified information, and/or other criminal activities related to the Clinton Global Graft Foundation.

She responded, “Oh for goodness … that’s not going to happen. I’m not even answering that question.”

Well, she better get ready to answer that question, because the investigation of Hillary’s email scandal is reaching a climax.

My sources tell me that the Justice Department is close to empaneling a grand jury and deciding whether to grant statutory immunity to Huma Abedin, Hillary’s closest adviser.

That would force Huma to testify under oath and face perjury charges and jail time if she lies. I’m also told that Hillary herself will most likely be forced to testify.

Klein indicates that FBI director James Comey is inching ever closer to a recommendation to indict Hillary Clinton, a political hot potato handed to Attorney General Loretta Lynch the likes of which the political system hasn’t seen since Nixon.

My sources say the likelihood is that Lynch will not make that decision herself. Instead, she’ll probably appoint a special counsel to make the decision. That will get the Obama administration off the hook and avoid charges of a conflict of interest or, even worse, obstruction of justice.

Klein offers a series of intriguing questions that this scenario raises, the first four of which are:

1. Could Hillary run for president if she is under criminal indictment?

2. Would she step down voluntarily?

3. Could the Democratic [sic] Party make her step down?

4. Who would take her place as the party’s presidential standard-bearer?

Maybe the Democrats could run someone to the left of Crazy old Marxist Bernie Sanders. Say, Obama’s baseball buddy Raul Castro, perhaps. (For more from the author of “FBI May Seek Immunity for Huma to Nail Hillary, Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.