What a mess our world is in. What a mess America is in. What a mess the church is in . . .
Isaiah 5:20 encapsulates, I believe, the cultural condition of much of the world, most of America and an alarmingly high percentage of those who belong, or at least claim to belong, to the body of Christ. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
Calling evil good. That sums us up.
But, hey, “grace,” right? I mean, you’ve seen the bumper sticker. “Christ’s grace is sufficient,” isn’t it?
Well, yes and no. Christ’s grace is sufficient to give us His strength in our own pathetic weakness and to impute his perfect righteousness to us, despite our own filthy and fallen nature (see 2 Corinthians 12:9). (Read more from “America’s Mess: Calling Evil Good and Good Evil” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Starbuck_Community_Church.jpg8001200Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-23 23:09:082016-04-11 10:52:20America’s Mess: Calling Evil Good and Good Evil
I spent the weekend listening to national media commentators (so called “experts”) gloat over Hillary’s “decisive victory” in Nevada and how she is now on firm footing to win the Democratic presidential nomination. The media is committing fraud- you are being lied to.
Hillary’s razor thin Nevada victory wasn’t a “decisive victory.” It was an embarrassment that required spending millions of dollars to garner a pathetic 6,316 votes in an anemic turnout.
“Decisive victory?” The national media is committing fraud. Hillary once led Bernie Sanders by 40 points in Nevada. She led by 25 points less than 30 days ago. She won by 5 points.
But more importantly, the turnout was embarrassing, especially considering the millions spent on TV advertising. Hillary not only spent millions to draw a measly 6000 votes, overall turnout was down one third from 2008.
And she lost by 70 points among voters who voted based on “honesty.” (Read more from “The Media Is Lying- Hillary Didn’t Win Nevada” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Hillary_Clinton_speaking_at_Families_USA-1.jpg269400Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-22 23:27:372016-04-11 10:52:21The Media Is Lying. Hillary Did NOT Win Nevada
A little while back, I argued that Marco Rubio’s tactics in attacking Ted Cruz’s Senate record on immigration and national defense, among other things, were Alinskyite. They were and still are simply and demonstrably dishonest. Yet he persists, knowing full well that by the time the truth catches up with him, if ever, the damage will have been done. More recently, Rubio and his campaign team have intensified and broadened their Alinskyite tactics, now focusing on the ultimate personal smear — that Ted Cruz is a serial liar. Even in this, Rubio is not original. Of course, Donald Trump has been calling his opponents liars as an almost Tourette’s-like response against anyone who reminds him of his past but recent support for leftists and leftist causes, some of whom and which he still embraces.
But Rubio’s smears are part of a more deliberative and unrelenting propaganda campaign. They are now at the core of his campaign effort to dislodge Cruz and clear the field against Trump.
Saul Alinksy explained it this way: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Rubio fancies himself the next Ronald Reagan. But such self-aggrandizement is unmerited. He’s more Alinsky. Indeed, it was Reagan who, in his 1966 race for Governor of California, declared: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” I doubt Reagan would approve of Rubio’s campaign of character assassination against Cruz. In all the years I campaigned for Reagan and worked for his administration, I cannot recall Reagan ever talking about another Republican this way. Certainly not as a relentless propaganda campaign.
Rubio, like Trump, has difficulty explaining his past positions. For Trump, it doesn’t seem to matter. Moreover, Trump’s resort to personal attacks can be followed up with evidence of his business accomplishments. But Rubio has no significant accomplishments other than his election to various public offices. He has few if any accomplishments outside of politics and virtually no accomplishments in public office as a U.S. senator. In fact, Rubio’s most notorious public act was as a senator, i.e., his leading role in crafting one of the most disastrous immigration bills in modern times, in knowing violation of his pledge to the voters of Florida in his last election. Not only has Rubio’s immigration record gone from anti-amnesty to pro-amnesty to utter incoherence, but the issue of his own integrity is at stake. Thus, he employs Alinsky’s rule and accuses Cruz of what he has actually become. He now focuses the media on his own accusations rather than his own thin record.
Campaigns are usually tough. No question about that. As I write this, Cruz just dropped his communications director for re-tweeting a false tweet. Perhaps there’s more to it. Trump fired some of his staff early on. Carson did the same more recently. But when the candidate himself (Rubio) is the source of the Alinskyite tactics, not a staffer acting on his own, that’s an entirely different matter. I had high hopes for Rubio when I was among his earliest supporters against Charlie Crist in Florida. But I’m deeply disappointed in him, as are many who voted for him. The growing endorsements for Rubio’s presidential candidacy from establishment Republicans, most of whom cannot better articulate his accomplishments than he can, emphasize the point.
It is not too late for Rubio to reverse course. But I doubt he will. Polling in South Carolina shows that he (along with Trump) was successful with this tactic. (For more from the author of “Mark Levin: Stop the Lies, Marco” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/6360916053_625212fe79_b.jpg8011024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-22 23:25:142016-04-11 10:52:23Mark Levin: Stop the Lies, Marco
The minute the polls close following a contentious election, the first question on everyone’s mind is: who won? The question that is obviously never asked is: what won? That is because issues are never on the ballot; only personalities are on the ballot.
There are three indelible factors in politics that are often overlooked by those of us who live and breathe this stuff for a living. 1) Perception is reality, even if the reality is antithetical to the public perception of a candidate; 2) voters ultimately cast ballots for individuals based on persona, not a coherent set of principles; and 3) name ID is the single biggest determinant of success.
As a result, political commentators all too often think that because, in their minds, candidate A believes in one set of principles and candidate B believes in another set of principles, voters who chose candidate A desired those policies and principles over candidate B’s. Unfortunately, elections don’t work that way. Many voters have no idea where a candidate really stands on the issues and often think their candidate believes the very opposite of his real position.
Consider the following: By a margin of 70-20%, Trump supporters in South Carolina, according to a PPP poll, want the Confederate Flag to fly over the state capital. But here’s the kicker: Trump himself supported Nikki Haley’s decision to remove it! Again, perception is reality, even when the reality is antithetical to the perception.
More than 55% of South Carolina voters picked Trump and Rubio combined. But it’s quite evident from the exit polling and the mood of the electorate that voters did NOT vote for the following (positions taken by at least one of the aforementioned candidates):
Single-payer health care
Eminent domain
Women in combat
Being an “honest broker” between Israel and the Palestinians
Open borders
The homosexual agenda
Judicial supremacy
Abortion and funding Planned Parenthood
Raising taxes on the wealthy
Cutting deals with the Democrats and establishment Republicans
In fact, it’s quite evident that voters want the exact opposite. The GOP electorate is larger, more conservative, and more religious than ever. And the 800-pound gorilla in the room is immigration. You can’t have a party that ignores its base on such a critical issue for over 20 years and get away with it forever. Whether Trump is sincere or not will be determined in the future, but his initial decision to jump on this issue has forever cemented his perception as the anti-establishment candidate who will fight political correctness. Three-fourths of the voters support a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, an issue we were proud to spotlight early and often here at Conservative Review – long before Donald Trump ran for president.
In addition, among voters to whom “shared religious beliefs matter,” Trump won a plurality, despite the fact that, in reality, he is not very religious at all. But he still won in a record turnout among Evangelicals. Again, perception is reality. And although Cruz won a plurality among self-described “very conservative” voters, Donald Trump still placed a close second, which means he is clearly siphoning off large numbers of the core base in addition to non-ideological and new voters.
At this point, Donald Trump is the clear front-runner. But what is also the front-runner are the principles and issues we’ve spotlighted for so long and will continue to do so, irrespective of who wins the nomination. Men are fallible, but principles endure. (For more from the author of “What Voters Did NOT Vote for in South Carolina” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/trump-sc-victory.jpg9001600Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-21 23:10:192016-04-11 10:52:25What Voters Did NOT Vote for in South Carolina
“We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.”
Ronald Reagan powerfully stated this truism in 1964 while campaigning for Barry Goldwater. Reagan had Bernie Sanders pegged while he was a school boy reading Eugene Debs. Bernie Sanders would tell you that the fat man ate the thin man out of house and home, and that’s why he’s fat. In reality, the fat man freely bought food and ate it, and the thin man apparently did the same, just less of it. The Sanders solution is to assure none of us ever get fat again.
Reagan continued in his famous “A Time for Choosing” speech, “If government planning and welfare had the answer, shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? But the reverse is true. Each year, the need grows great, the program grows greater.”
Government has worked so well, that the left campaigns every cycle like they’ve never failed the people. Bernie Sanders, like Barack Obama before him, pretend like they are at the dawn of the progressive era, when in fact, they’ve had all day.
Therein lies the rub: Bernie Sanders is nothing new, just the next installment in the series of steps to the workers’ paradise; progressivism was always socialism on layaway, and Bernie’s just here to make the final payment. (Read more from “What Would Ronald Reagan Say About Bernie Sanders’ Socialism” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/reagan-thatcher.jpg9001600Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-21 23:09:202016-04-11 10:52:26What Would Ronald Reagan Say About Bernie Sanders’ Socialism
On the night of Feb. 15, the split screen that has defined the 2016 presidential race repeated itself with a new urgency. In one half there was Republican front-runner Donald Trump, rallying thousands at an arena in Greenville, S.C., with immigration jeremiads and classic rock anthems. In the other, on a stage 203 miles away in North Charleston, there was Jeb Bush, the pack leader Trump had long since deposed, making his first public appearance with his brother, former President George W. Bush. Here was Jeb, fighting for his political life in a state that had long favored his family dynasty.
This cycle, dynasty hasn’t counted for much. In the debate two days earlier, Trump viciously attacked the elder Bush’s record, marking the first time anyone can remember a GOP poll leader lacerating the party’s most recent President. Trump earned boos for the performance, but the audience in attendance—South Carolina party faithfuls—was so distant from the Republican rank and file that the question “Why are people booing?” trended on Google during the event. What’s more, the businessman’s soaring popularity statewide didn’t suffer. If Palmetto State Republicans didn’t punish that heresy against the last Republican commander in chief, it could spell the last gasp for Jeb, who finished 6th in Iowa and 4th in New Hampshire.
At a mininum, the Feb. 20 primary in South Carolina stands poised to further thin the three-way contest among Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Ohio Gov. John Kasich to consolidate establishment support against Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. In the Nevada Democratic caucuses that same day, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is hustling to blunt the momentum that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders carried out of his blockbuster win in New Hampshire. But both sides are dug in for a slog that could spill into the summer.
It would be silly, seeing what we’ve seen, to make any sweeping predictions about how this race will end. In the past, advantages like money raised, endorsements, and name recognition were pretty good indicators of election outcomes. If anything, it may be working the other way this time. Bush, whose campaign was an early juggernaut, embarrassingly floundered despite smashing fundraising records (he still easily retains the money lead, with $150 million raised, including Super PAC funds, and $84 million spent). Clinton, with 184 endorsements from governors and members of Congress, has faced a real challenge from Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders, who got only two. (Read more from “What Trump, Cruz, and Sanders Mean for the Political Establishment” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-28.jpg7881401Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-20 00:36:432016-04-11 10:52:28What Trump, Cruz, and Sanders Mean for the Political Establishment
Photo Credit: The Conservative Treehouse Radio and Media personality Glenn Beck has been campaigning heavily in support of Senator Ted Cruz for president. Previously, Beck stated Ted Cruz’s birth was driven by divinity comparable to the birth of Christ; that’s creepy. Beck increased the creepy quotient last week when he proclaimed Senator Cruz as the guiding hand, the resurrection, to take us through the rapture.
However, the latest Glenn Beck point of advocacy takes the creepy factor even higher than previous divine proclamations, if that’s possible:
(Via Daily Caller) […] On Tuesday, conservative radio host and vocal Cruz backer Glenn Beck asserted on his talk show that God brought about the death of Scalia so America would “wake up” and vote for Cruz.
Speaking in the voice of the heavenly father, Beck told his audience, “You’re welcome. I just woke the American people up. I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, look at how close your liberty is to being lost.”
Reverting back to his own voice, the radio host added, “You now have lost your liberty. You replace one guy and you now have 5-4 decisions in the other direction. Just with this one guy, you’ve lost your liberty so you’d better elect somebody that is going to be somebody on [the Supreme Court]… The Constitution is hanging by a thread. That thread has just been cut and the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist.”
In 2013, Rafael Cruz, who’s an ordained pastor, said in a sermon at a church in Irvin, Texas, that his son is “anointed” from high above to serve as a “king” to bring about the “great transfer of wealth” from the wicked to the righteous.
The sermon given by the elder Cruz is in line with the fundamentalist sect of evangelical Christianity known as dominionism. Dominionists preach that America should be governed by their interpretation of biblical law and be ruled exclusively by devout fundamentalists. (For more from the author of “Glenn Beck: God Killed Justice Scalia to Make America Vote for Ted Cruz…” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/cruz-beck-2.jpg350598Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-18 23:04:182016-04-11 10:52:29Glenn Beck: God Killed Justice Scalia to Make America Vote for Ted Cruz…
“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.”
So said Sen. Ted Kennedy on the Senate floor on June 23, 1987, just 45 minutes after Robert Bork was nominated by President Reagan to replace the retiring Justice Lewis Powell.
Our Founders envisioned the judiciary as the weakest branch of government in terms of influencing the political direction of the country. After all, in a democratic republic, it’s the elected representatives through the principles of federalism who must decide the critical societal questions of the time. Judges are not elected precisely because they were to have “neither force nor will” in directing our society, rather they were to interpret and apply the statutes as passed by Congress.
Even those Founders who believed the courts had the power of judicial review to strike down statutes also believed the courts were to exercise that power only on rare occasions and only when laws flagrantly violated the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution at the time it was adopted. And even in those instances, the court was never regarded as the universally binding “law of the land”; rather all three branches of government had co-equal authority in guarding the constitutional boundaries. After all, if the judiciary was to be the final arbiter of the Constitution, how could it have been said that it would be the weakest branch of government and not the most powerful?
Yet, throughout the 20th century, and crystalizing during the Warren-era, Democrats used the court system as the primary means of achieving social transformation, rewriting the Constitution, and redefining fundamental rights. When Reagan finally made a concerted effort to stop this undemocratic transformation by nominating a man who merely respected the role of the judiciary as our founders envisioned, Democrats viciously smeared his Supreme Court nominee, inventing a new term in the English language, “Borking.” Four years later, Democrats savaged Clarence Thomas, the first Republican African American Supreme Court nominee, with the worst personal attacks imaginable, almost derailing his confirmation.
Democrats had become too cowardly to work the democratic process in pursuit of their goals, so they sought to constitutionalize their political agenda through the unelected branch of government, out of the reach of the people. As such, they only nominated those who would supplant the Constitution for the Democratic Party platform and blocked any Republican nominee who would uphold the original vision of the court and the Constitution. Thus, within a few decades, the court had become the most consequential branch of government. Elections only mattered to the extent that they enabled the victor to change the orientation of the court. This is the bed the Democrats have made.
Yet, despite the Democratic politicization of the court and the confirmation process, Republicans did not return the favor. They dutifully confirmed the first Democrat appointees in years—Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — with almost unanimous support. This, despite the fact that Ginsburg and Breyer were every bit as post-constitutional as Bork and Thomas were originalists.
This imbalance in approaches between the parties created a dynamic in which every Democrat-appointee was a radical liberal who promoted their agenda on the court. Whereas a number of Republican nominees — from Kennedy and Souter to Chief Justice Roberts–often side with the post-constitutionalists. Thus, even with Scalia on the court in his full glory, the Left still had a 5-4 majority to remake marriage — the building block of our civilization. And even the remaining slam dunk issues, such as gun rights, hang by a bare 5-4 constitutional thread.
Now with Scalia’s untimely death, we’ve come full circle and conservatives will no longer roll over and allow Democrats to wage one-sided judicial warfare. With Republicans in full control of the Senate, Democrats will be forced to lie in the bed they made for over half a century on the court and for three decades during the confirmation process.
If Democrats want to return the court to its original role when it wasn’t the final arbiter of social transformation, then let’s shake on it, strip the courts of jurisdiction, and confirm Obama’s nominee. As Justice Scalia always taught, when you believe strongly in a policy change, “persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.”
Now that Democrats have transmogrified the court into a super legislature, let the next election determine the outcome of the Supreme Court, as it does every policy-making body. (For more from the author of “Democrats Must Lie in the Politicized Judiciary Bed They Made” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Schumer-Cardin-AP.jpg339672Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-17 22:47:532016-04-11 10:52:33Democrats Must Lie in the Politicized Judiciary Bed They Made
In his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, Scalia argued that under the Constitution, as correctly understood, the people could decide through their state governments to approve or not approve same-sex marriage. But the court had usurped that power and more.
“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” said Scalia.
“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty,” he said, “robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”
A majority of the court has said that individuals have a right to kill unborn babies, but that the majority of a state does not have a right to prohibit two people of the same sex from “marrying.” The court is now poised to decide whether Catholic nuns — despite their First Amendment right to the “free exercise” of religion — can be forced to act against their religion in providing health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs.
What will be next from what Antonin Scalia rightly called the “unelected committee of nine” that now revises our Constitution? (Read more from “What Antonin Scalia Foresaw” HERE)
Kansas Gov. Brownback endorsed Marco Rubio. No surprise here.
Just as Brownback lied to the citizens of Kansas to win his gubernatorial seat, saying he was opposed to the “unconstitutional and socialistic” Obama Care, before he entered an agreement with the feds to implement it, Rubio lied about supporting amnesty and wanting to expand immigration to win his federal Senate seat.
Rubio ran for the federal Senate on a platform of no amnesty of any kind or any magnitude for illegal immigrates. He beat up his opponent, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R), over Crist’s support for amnesty. (Lynn Jenkins did the same to Jim Ryan.) Rubio even said that Crist’s position ” …’an earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty…’ ” According to Rubio’s campaign rhetoric he did not support amnesty no how, no way. Heck, Rubio even supported English as the official language of the U.S.
Nonetheless, Rubio had beguiled the “tea party” in Florida and he was their man. The “tea party” was more mad than informed and do doubt some suffered from the short term memory, partisanship and indifference to Liberty the charlatan politicians and billionaire elitists rely upon. (I have seen the same maladies in Kansas.)
As soon as Rubio arrived in Washington D.C. he staffed his office with a couple of the most pro-amnesty people in Washington (Cesar Conda) and joined up with the others in the “gang of eight” such as Lindsey Graham(R) and John McCain (R) and helped to pen “…the biggest mass immigration / amnesty bill anyone had ever seen….”
Rubio had “talking head” help from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity et.al. (Two of the same “talking heads” now supporting a rewrite to our U.S. Constitution via an Article V amendments convention, which Rubio also supports.) As the Washington Post said: “Mr. Rubio’s main public role in the debate wasn’t about amendments or specifics; it was about selling the measure to a skeptical conservative electorate.”
To Rubio (as with Brownback) it was not what “We the People” wanted, the rule of law or what was good for America it was what was politically expedient for him and staying on the right side of the GOP Establishment and their billionaire masters. That was his real objective. “Billionaire donors and their pollsters declared that the GOP must pass an amnesty and mass immigration plan… ” and Rubio was going to give it to them.
It has been said that “a leopard cannot change its spots” and so it is with a skunk and its strip.