Obama’s Sanctuary Nation

/1 Comment/in , /by

Barack ObamaThe biggest policy fight simmering in the upcoming budget bill is the debate over continued funding for Planned Parenthood in light of the gruesome videos exposing their trail of blood at the expense of taxpayers. But conservatives must not forget the other trail of blood – the one connecting the White House directly to the deaths of numerous American citizens at the hands of violent illegal aliens.

That is the trail created by Obama’s impeachable offense from last November when he unilaterally abolished the Secure Communities program, one of the most effective law enforcement programs in the field, which facilitated coordination between local law enforcement to share information through the universal fingerprint database on illegal aliens held in their prisons. Although the courts halted Obama’s issuance of work permits and Social Security cards to illegal aliens, he was not challenged on his illegal cancelling of the Secure Communities program.

Now, Obama is prohibiting ICE agents from putting out detainers on most criminal aliens, and the tragic results are self-evident. We’ve witnessed a torrent of cases where illegal aliens were arrested multiple times for violent crimes only to be released without an ICE detainer and set free into our communities to kill innocent Americans. Recent data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), an arm of Syracuse University, now shows that Obama can declare mission accomplished – at the expense of the sovereignty and security of the American people:

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued 7,993 detainers during April 2015, according to the latest data available from the agency. This is 30 percent fewer than the 11,355 detainers ICE issued in October 2014 — the month prior to the November 20, 2014 announcement of a new DHS policy restricting detainer use and discontinuing its Secure Communities (SC) program.

Overall, ICE detainers declined 73% from the peak in March 2011 before the first round of amnesties was fully implemented.

These disturbing numbers follow the release of an unclassified Drug Enforcement Administration report showing the expansion of major drug cartels in U.S. cities. The Washington Times also reported that 20% of all illegal aliens caught at the border last year had criminal records. It’s pretty safe to say that with such a prevalence of violent individuals coming over the border, there are likely more that have not been caught. Think of all the violent drug cartel members who will roam free as a result of this policy.

Fox News has also done an analysis of illegal immigrant crime data, and while noting that the federal government has done their best to obscure the information, here is what they discovered:

Illegal aliens account for 13.6% of all offenders sentenced for crimes committed in the U.S., even though they only represent 3.5% of the population.

Illegals account for 12% of murder sentences, 20% of kidnapping sentences, and 16% of drug trafficking sentences.

There are 2.1 million illegal and legal immigrants convicted of crimes, but 1.2 million criminal aliens remain at large in the U.S.

Obama has replaced the Secure Communities program with the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) as a cover to turn a blind eye to all criminal aliens under the guise of “prioritizing” the worst offenders. As the House Judiciary Committee has found, the PEP program ignores even the most dangerous criminal aliens unless they have already been convicted, not just arrested and housed in a local jail or state prison. Even those detainers are issued on a “voluntary” basis, in other words, ratifying the sanctuary city policies of states like California.

Consequently, the issue of sanctuary cities per se has now become irrelevant because it is downstream from the broader problem of the sanctuary nation that Obama has put into place. Appallingly, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson had the nerve to feign outrage over San Francisco’s policies when he is implementing those same priorities nationwide. It is unconscionable for Republicans to fund DHS without defunding the PEP ‘amnesty for murderers program’ and conditioning that funding to the reinstatement of Secure Communities.

How many more Americans will die simply because this president refuses to obey the law? (For more from the author of “Obama’s Sanctuary Nation” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

When Will the GOP Start Fighting?

/4 Comments/in , /by

MitchSlappingMediaThe debt ceiling.

The Obama income tax hike.

The Obamacare fight.

The sequester caps.

The Cromnibus.

President Obama’s executive amnesty.

Now, Planned Parenthood.

When does the GOP start winning? Here’s a better question, more appropriate to the times, when does GOP leadership even begin fighting? The GOP leadership has forfeited every one of the above battles without much more than a token, ex-post-facto, response, long after the outcome of the battles were determined.

While the GOP leadership continues to view its own base as problematic and unreasonable, the base is in full revolt, viewing the GOP leadership as deceitful and ineffective. Many in the grassroots community are leaning towards non-politicians in the early presidential selection process as a result of the continued failures of Party leadership. Most unfortunate is that the GOP leadership has made little effort to understand the frustrations of the base, or course correct itself and win back those who have knocked on the doors, waved the campaign signs, manned the polls, and donated their hard earned money. It is my sincere hope to be able to explain to them, in the simplest terms possible, why we have lost faith in their ability to do anything other than make flowery campaign promises.

First, what the heck is their strategy? Do they even have one?

They have forfeited nearly all of the important fights with nothing to show for it. Having campaigned for office myself I have found even the most passionate grassroots conservatives to be very reasonable when it involves using the political machinery to achieve conservative goals. Conservatives largely understand that not every legislative battle will be won but that principles matter and over time, principled votes, even if they fall short, will demonstrate to America that the GOP stands for something.

Being consistently on the right side of the debates on taxes, the debt, healthcare, defense, abortion, immigration, school choice and other issues important to conservatives would have earned GOP leadership a tremendous amount of “trust capital” with the base that would have afforded them some leeway in implementing a strategic legislative strategy. Stated simply, a history of principled leadership would have allowed them to lose a couple of short-term battles without significant consequences from the base because most of us would have understood that these short-term losses were critical towards marshalling resources for long-term, and lasting, Conservative victories.

Sadly, GOP leadership has no such political capital with the base because that’s not their strategy. Their strategy appears to be to forfeit the short-term battles, forfeit the long-term battles, and to do whatever it takes, and to say whatever it takes, to maintain power while ignoring most of what the Party actually stands for. How long do they think this can continue?

After punting on the debt ceiling, we wound up with the sequester spending caps which they then proceeded to punt on as well. After telling the base they would repeal Obamacare they forfeited that fight for a series of show votes, and many in GOP leadership have since moved on. Now we have the Planned Parenthood fight. This is a fight with such a clear and distinct, right and wrong side that it’s hard to believe even the insulated GOP leadership team is having a tough time picking a side. Then, doubling down on silly, they parrot the Left and the media’s ridiculous arguments about government shutdowns insisting, preemptively, that the shutdown would be the GOP’s own fault.

Yes, this is the utter fecklessness of this failed leadership team. A first-grader could follow, logically, that the GOP leadership CAN’T shut down the government. How can they shut down the government if they pass a proper budget, without funding for the organ traffickers at Planned Parenthood, using all of their assigned constitutional duties, and put that budget on the President’s desk? If the President refuses to sign that budget, knowing that his refusal to sign the budget will shut down the government, then the responsibility lies with him. Is this really that difficult for the allegedly bright people elected to GOP leadership on Capitol Hill to comprehend? Or, are they so afraid of the media, the Left, academia, the blogosphere, and just about anyone else with a platform, that they are afraid to take this common sense message to the American people?

If, as a Party, we are going to forfeit the short game, and the long game, because we are afraid to stand on principle, then what’s the point of the Party? If the constitutional power of the purse delegated to the congress is irrelevant, then why not just forfeit away the constitutional republic for a monarchy? Why continue to waste America’s time? Look no further for an explanation as to why there is a rebellion brewing in the ranks of the GOP. We are tired of being tired. We want our Party back and we refuse to waste another dollar, or another bead of sweat, on GOP leaders who are leading us across the eventual horizon of a political black hole. (For more from the author of “When Will the GOP Start Fighting?” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Obama Bullies a Weak Republican Congress

/3 Comments/in , /by

whitehouseobamatoastObama’s position has been straightforward, at least privately. He will do whatever he wants and no one will stop him. He has repeatedly defied Congress and the courts to do so.

While he plays the game of giving speech in which he demands that Congress do X or Y, it’s in practice shut out of the process. Here’s how it worked on the Iran Deal.

Obama made it clear to Democrats in Congress that he would implement the deal no matter what. The Republican leadership by now has gotten the message. The message is that Congressional voters are irrelevant. They don’t affect policy unless the dictator-in-chief allows them to.

That reduces all such votes to positioning. Gestures. Some are more meaningful than others, but barring impeachment proceedings, they don’t really matter.

Obama illegally allocates money, goes to war, makes treaties and makes appointments while bypassing the Senate. In such an environment, you either defy or you appear to defy. Compromise is irrelevant because Obama doesn’t compromise. Not even with fellow Democrats. (Read more from “How Obama Bullies a Weak Republican Congress” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Jeb Bush Would’ve Saved $3M With His Own Tax Plan

/0 Comments/in , /by

102986166-IMG_5393r.530x298All kinds of people will have lower taxes if Jeb Bush gets his way with the tax code—especially those who earn the sort of money the candidate himself has.

In fact, a Big Crunch analysis of the most recent six years of Bush’s tax returns available suggest he would have saved more than $3 million, had his proposals had been enacted at the time.

In 2013 alone, the most recent year available, Bush would have saved nearly $800,000 of the nearly $3 million he paid the federal government in taxes. Most of that would have come from wages and business, which account for 91 percent of his total taxable income.

In June, Bush released 33 years of tax returns—more than any other major presidential candidate in history. The returns show his business growth as a real estate player in Florida, the drop in income when he took office as governor, and sky-rocketing income as a consultant and speaker in the years since leaving office.

“On the top end you have businesses that allow you to take a lot of expense deductions that the lower end doesn’t have,” said Timothy Gagnon, faculty director for the MST and MSA online programs at Northeastern University. “If I’m an average guy and I buy the Boston Globe, I just pay for it, but if I need the Boston Globe to keep up with business affairs, I get to deduct it.” (Read more from “How Jeb Bush Would’ve Saved $3M With His Own Tax Plan” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Are Western Values Losing Their Sway?

/0 Comments/in , /by

13erlangerSUB-master675The West is suddenly suffused with self-doubt.

Centuries of superiority and global influence appeared to reach a new summit with the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the countries, values and civilization of the West appeared to have won the dark, difficult battle with Communism.

That victory seemed especially sweet after the turn of China toward capitalism, which many thought presaged a slow evolution to middle-class demands for individual rights and transparent justice — toward a form of democracy. But is the embrace of Western values inevitable? Are Western values, essentially Judeo-Christian ones, truly universal?

The history of the last decade is a bracing antidote to such easy thinking. The rise of authoritarian capitalism has been a blow to assumptions, made popular by Francis Fukuyama, that liberal democracy has proved to be the most reliable and lasting political system.

With the collapse of Communism, “what we may be witnessing,” Mr. Fukuyama wrote hopefully in 1989, “is the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” (Read more from “Are Western Values Losing Their Sway?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Isn’t the Way to Honor the Victims of Islamist Terrorism

/6 Comments/in , /by

syrian-migrants-in-greece-AP-640x480Why — on the anniversary of 9-11 — are we debating how many Muslim refugees we will invite into our heartland? Isn’t this a little strange, like a dark Hollywood comedy?

When President Obama and John Kerry suggest taking 10,000 Syrian refugees in 2016, 90 percent of them Muslim and many of them jihadist sympathizers– really, it’s not that hard. Not today. Not ever. Just say no. In fact, say HELL NO!

Why is there even a debate on the matter?

Yes, the flood of refugees fleeing Syria is a humanitarian tragedy of historic proportions. However, these are not refugees from a terrible hurricane, a volcano eruption, or a tsunami tidal wave. These 4,000,000 are refugees from a civil war made intractable and horrific by an Islamist insurrection called the Islamic State, or ISIS. The refugees are a product of the same war that victimized 3,000 Americans on that beautiful September morning in 2001.

Unlike the Vietnam boat people or Cuban refugees after Castro came to power, the U.S. has no moral responsibility for the chaos in Syria. In fact, just the opposite is the case. (Read more from “This Isn’t the Way to Honor the Victims of Islamist Terrorism” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Does Ted Cruz Know the GOP Establishment Has Made His Win

/114 Comments/in , /by

Ted Cruz• I get it. You want a person who values and cherishes the constitution with the same ferocity and protective instincts you carry.

• I get it. I understand the frustration and anxiety from years of watching our constitutional republic disregarded and torn to shreds through DC policy, judicial fiat and legislative usurpation.

• I get it. I understand the intense core belief that we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy. It should not be too much to ask for a valiant advocate to hear the calling and stand steadfast for the principles inherent within our nation. I really do understand, and feel the same.

ted-cruz-and-mike-lee-lg

Long ago, during a dinner with Lou Holtz he told the story of his arrival at Notre Dame. Coach Holtz arrived to find his team filled with untapped talent, yet torn with internal conflict, turmoil, inter-player animosity and backbiting.

Holtz took measure of the team and called them to the locker room. He passed out paper and pencils and asked each player to write down their grievances and explain why their teammates were holding back the potential inherent in their own skill. A few hours later he returned to the locker room and led the team to the far side of the practice field.

There the players saw a shovel and hole he had been digging while they were writing. Coach held out a large empty coffee can; and before asking each player to place their scribe inside the container he asked them to commit to each-other and to God, that what they had written could be removed from their mind forever.

Holtz asked each player to make a promise; a pledge to themselves, to each other and most importantly to God, from that moment forward those grievances would be permanently gone.

Coach Holtz counseled everyone, without judgement, they were under no-compulsion to put their list into that can. No-one would think worse of them for retaining their grievance. He promised to fulfill the contract of those who were attending school on scholarship. Regardless of their decision, every man before him was guaranteed a college degree from Notre Dame University.

However, those who chose not to drop their grievances would not be on the team.

Even if it meant Holtz fielded a team of barely enough players, he was not going to lead a fractured army; his program could only succeed as a united effort.

Coach stood, and in order to give the young men time to think, he bowed his head in prayer. After several minutes Holtz then held out the can.

One-by-one the players folded their notes and placed them in the can; each fully understanding the severity of the counsel they had just witnessed. Each player in his own way defining himself in that moment of decision and choosing to give themselves to a greater possibility. The sum is greater than the collective assembly of the individual parts.

Holtz then took the can, sealed it, placed it in the ground and asked each of the players to use the shovel to bury their collective grievances. Linking hands they formed a circle around the now covered hole. They stood in the darkening twilight in that furthest corner of the field – and they prayed together.

The final words from Coach Holtz echoed with severity amid the stillness. He asked them to look at each other, and to look at the field behind them. He reminded them that in this moment, right then, they were looking at the birth place of champions. He looked toward the direction of the stadium where thousands gather to cheer the Fighting Irish, and he reminded them that is was not over there where champions were born – it was right here on the practice field, when no-one is cheering and no-one is watching.

Coach told them each how proud he was to be a part of “their team of champions” – and he pledged with full measure of intensity that he would never disregard them, nor would he ever fail them. He then sent them back to the dorms….. the rest, as they say, is history.

ted-cruz-value-voters-summit

This story is shared because I am willing to put all my Ted Cruz objections into a similar coffee can and bury them forever:

• The relationship with the Council on Foreign Relations.

• The relationship with Wall Street banking interests.

• The votes to support TPPA.

• The decision to support McConnell January through June 2014.

I fully understand that a man of principle can make mistakes and accidentally place himself in a position of compromise.

Ted Cruz won victory in the 2012 Texas Senate race despite the GOP establishment supporting his opponent Dewhurst. Cruz then went to DC to fulfill his campaign promise to repeal ObamaCare and fight against the DC constructs he later called the “cartel”.

Cruz is a very intelligent, intensely sharp and highly articulate representative Senator. All of these attributes are merited and evidenced by those who know and speak of him.

Ted Cruz walked into the belly of the beast and fought valiantly for 10 months in 2013 to bring about change. It stands as reasonable for a man who faced the severity of the professional DC Republican class, and the onslaught of a media machine seeking his destruction, that he would be exhausted in the winter of ’13/’14 and make a poor decision to trust Mitch McConnell purely based on finding himself in a position of isolation. I can reconcile the mistakes which stem as a result of psychological/emotional exhaustion.

But if we are going to stand naked before each other, and have an honest conversation, there are basic acceptances that must also stand.

During the period when McConnell was leading Cruz astray (December ’13 to June ’14) and while Cruz was vice-chair of the NRSC -which was maneuvering to support McConnell’s buddy Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran- unbeknownst to Cruz McConnell was actively engaged with the RNC in creating the GOPe roadmap.

Part of that 2014 activity, which Cruz was presumably unaware of, was the a collaboration between the GOPe and RNC to make changes to benefit the power interests who were planning the future nomination path for Jeb Bush.

Republican primary race rule changes, finance changes (hidden in the CRomnibus bill), delegate distribution changes, party primary date changes etc., were/are all part of the collaborative RNC/GOPe construct to deliver an GOP establishment win for Jeb Bush (similar to 2012 with Mitt Romney).

ted-cruz-and-rand-paul (1)

While the NRSC simultaneously plotted to attack Chris McDaniels in Mississippi, Matt Bevin in Kentucky, and following the RNC success against Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia, and while Cruz and Rand Paul were leveraged to sit on the sidelines, these aforementioned plans were all taking place behind closed door.

It is accepted that by the time Ted Cruz caught on, and after he had given $240,000 to the NRSC, it was too late – the GOPe had already launched their attacks.

As a result, and after the mid-term elections, in January of 2015 Ted Cruz quit the NRSC.

Regardless of the discomfort inherent in these admissions, they are historical realities. None of these acceptances disqualify Cruz from presidential consideration today.

Fair enough?

However, the acceptance of what follows next is where find ourselves at loggerheads. The pathway the RNC/GOPe constructed to elect Jeb Bush specifically was designed to eliminate/defeat Ted Cruz.

Stop. And re-read this reality:

The GOPe road map was specifically and intentionally created by scheme and construct, to intentionally block any possibility for Ted Cruz to achieve 2016 presidential victory.

As a direct and factual outcome there is nothing Ted Cruz can do to overcome the structural dynamics currently in place which block any possibility of him achieving electoral victory. Period.

We have laid out the rules, laid out the road-map, and laid out the primary contests -REPEATEDLY- and we continued to asked anyone who finds themselves refusing this reality to outline a path for Cruz victory.

Unfortunately, it simply does not exist.

The RNC rules are now in place; the RNC primary dates are now all confirmed; the RNC delegate distributions all now set in stone; and there’s enough key state polling data for anyone to use who wants to prove this false.

We have studied this road-map intensely. We have explored the district-by-district level possibilities within each of the pre-March 16th 2016 states a hundred different ways, the numbers for anyone other than Trump just don’t add up.

The GOPe road-map was specifically created to block Ted Cruz, or anyone like Ted Cruz, from achieving victory.

Team Jeb is: Rubio, Fiorina, Christie, Huckabee, Kasich, Perry, Graham, Pataki and Gilmore. (10 GOP establishment candidates all part of the RNC/GOPe machine) We have outlined it all HERE.

If, for the sake of intellectual exercise, you remove Donald Trump from the race and apportion his supporters in a reasonable manner, what you will find is that the GOPe road map kicks back into play – and no non-jeb is able to pull enough support to defeat Jeb.

Remove Trump and Ben Carson becomes Herman Cain 2012; Cruz becomes Gingrich, Jeb replaces Romney and the 2016 outcome becomes 2012 ground-hog day. Just as designed.

Here’s the kicker…. As previously mentioned, Ted Cruz is a smart guy, and therefore Ted Cruz also is aware of this.

Ted Cruz is fully aware of this – he picked up on it months ago. Hence:

trump-cruz-2

We don’t like it either. It’s almost too bitter a pill to swallow – too big a bitter pill to accept. But that doesn’t change the result.

However, if you find yourself still seeking some proof therein, just ask the man himself. Ask Cruz, or a Cruz campaign insider to outline a pathway to victory.

[ps. For what it’s worth, it’s strongly suspected that Scott Walker is also aware.]

The Republican Party, and the Republican media apparatus, view us as their enemy. We are the enemy they need to protect themselves from:

In 2014, the RNC approved selection rules that govern how each state’s delegates are portioned out from the primaries. Under one of the changes, states holding their primaries between March 1 and March 14 will have their delegates doled out proportionately with election results, a change that will likely stymie a movement candidate.

States that have primaries on or after March 15 will be winner-take-all states.

That’s important because another RNC rule change requires that a candidate must win a majority of delegates in eight or more states before his or her name may be presented for nomination at the 2016 Republican National Convention.

With 18 GOP presidential candidates, for now, it will be that much harder for any candidate to win a majority in any state, let alone eight. (Article July 2015)

Now, ask yourself, why would the RNC want to “stymie a movement candidate“? Who exactly does that benefit? Obviously, the “non-movement” candidate, ie “the turtle“.

Isn’t the entire reason for campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina etc. to make a movement/momentum?

In addition Rule #40 changed in 2014 from previously five needed state wins, to a newer threshold of eight (8):

Officially, it’s Rule 40 in the RNC handbook and it states that any candidate for president “shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states” before their name is presented for nomination at the national convention. (article March 2014)

Again, ask yourself who does this benefit? A candidate can win seven states outright, and still not have their name presented for nomination?

These rules were made/affirmed in 2014 – Who or what exactly was the GOP concerned about blocking in 2016 that would necessitate such rules? When combined with other rule changes you can clearly identify a consolidation of power within the RNC apparatus intentionally constructed to stop the candidate of the GRASSROOTS from achieving victory.

It’s all part of their GOPe Roadmap.

2014 Amended Rules of the Republican Party for 2016 Election

(For more from the author of “Does Ted Cruz Know GOP Establishment Has Made His Win ” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

At What Point Does the Homosexual Agenda Become a National Religion?

/12 Comments/in , /by

Gay-Pride-parade-Los-Angeles-WeHo-Daily-1024x576Religious Protestants, Catholics, and Jews have been under strict scrutiny by the activist courts for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for simple, peaceful, and innocuous displays of religious symbols. Some of these religious symbols, such as a replica of the Ten Commandments, or references to God, such as the one in the Pledge of Allegiance, have been a part of this country since its founding. Yet, the legal community feels that anything short of eradicating public display of Judeo-Christian symbols violates the constitutional directive against establishing a national religion. Why shouldn’t paganism and secular agenda items, which are adhered to with more fervor and devotion than any major religion, be subjected to the same scrutiny?

Let’s be clear, nobody is being fined or thrown into jail for not being a Christian. Nobody has had their property rights violated for opposing Christian beliefs. On the other hand, individuals are now being jailed or fined for not servicing homosexual weddings. And I’m not just talking about Kim Davis. There have been endless cases of private business owners who have been fined or forced to abandon their livelihood for refusing to service the homosexual religion with their private property and private labor.

At what point is this not a government-sponsored religion infringing upon the most unalienable rights of religious liberty and property rights, in violation of the Establishment Clause? As James Madison wrote in an essay on Property in 1792, “conscience is the most sacred of all property.” His original draft of the First Amendment was even more effusive than the final version adopted by Congress. “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship…nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed….”

Yet, we now have actual property rights and the most sacred property – conscience – being forced to yield to a new super right – an entitlement to force states to redefine marriage – in order to service the fervency of the homosexual agenda. How can this be anything but the establishment of a national religion?

In 2013, just two years before Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy played legislature and God from the bench, he declared marriage to be fully within the domain of the states. In the Windsor case striking down DOMA, when it was convenient to invoke state power over marriage, Kennedy cited the following precedent from Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 298 (1942):

“[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce . . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” (Page 17)

He went on to say that “[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” And “[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”

Kennedy also admitted that “until recent years,. . . marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization.” (Page 13)

How could it be that a state like Kentucky, which did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law; it merely defined marriage as it had always been defined, as Kennedy conceded, and exercised its “exclusive province” over marriage to reinforce that interpretation with 75% of the vote, is now in contempt of court just two years later? How can this man have the power to overturn his own writings just two years prior in order to assert a new federal right superseding everything the state has ever done in defining marriage?

The only answer is that Kennedy has created a national religion in the year 2015 that will coerce state officials and even private land owners to obey the homosexual religion or face jail time. Who else would go to jail for peacefully declining to sign a document like that? A gay Texas judge is not being threatened with jail time for refusing to marry heterosexual couples, even though that was the law of the land since the state’s founding.

This is exactly what our Founders had in mind when they prohibited the establishment of a national religion. They did not mean to eradicate all religious symbolism, they merely desired that one religious denomination not persecute the other and violate their unalienable rights. That is exactly what is occurring under this pagan inquisition.

Ask yourself this question: why should Christianity and Judaism be any worse off – precisely because they are “deeply rooted in history and tradition” – than a new religion that is the antithesis of something rooted in our history and tradition? Does the fact that the homosexual agenda is not deeply rooted – the very litmus test required to assert a fundamental right – instill it with more legitimacy to imprison violators than the Christian religion which has been the dominant religion since the founding of the country? Why should the display of the Ten Commandments at government buildings garner less legitimacy than Obama’s display of the rainbow at the White House?

During the House floor debate over the First Amendment on August 20, 1789, James Madison explained the purpose of the Establishment Clause as follows: “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.” [Emphasis added].

Here’s a parting question: if the primary concern of Madison was to ensure that the elected branch of the federal government not compel individuals by the force of law to service a particular religion (as opposed to the innocuous display of religious symbols or public prayer), what would he say about an unelected branch of government compelling individuals to serve paganism in any manner contrary to their conscience? (For more from the author of “At What Point Does the Homosexual Agenda Become a National Religion?” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congressman on Iran Nuclear Deal: Obama Willfully Ignoring Constitutional Defects

/5 Comments/in , /by

11781825_925767570795983_6338049744908750646_nThis week, the House will hold votes related to the nuclear agreement with Iran. I have read the publicly available portions of the agreement in full. Consistent with my oath to support and defend the Constitution, I must oppose this nuclear deal.

There are at least two major constitutional defects with the nuclear deal.

First, President Barack Obama refuses to recognize the agreement as a treaty, subject to approval under the Constitution’s Treaty Clause (Art. II, Sec. 2, Cl. 2). Under the Treaty Clause, the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” To avoid this higher threshold for approval, the Obama administration asserts that the nuclear deal is merely an “executive agreement” that binds only this president.

Even if we accept this dubious claim, there is a second constitutional defect that compels me to reject the nuclear deal. Under the Take Care Clause (Art. II, Sec. 3, Cl. 5), the president must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” As I discuss below, the president clearly fails to fulfill this obligation.

In May, both houses of Congress passed, and the president signed into law, H.R. 1191, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (Review Act). The Review Act provides a process for congressional oversight of any nuclear deal, so that Congress can determine whether the nuclear-related sanctions Congress has imposed on Iran should be lifted. I have supported sanctions on Iran directed at preventing the country from obtaining or using a nuclear weapon (in contrast to sanctions targeting non-nuclear-related civilian activities), and it’s likely that negotiations would not have taken place had those sanctions not been enacted.

The Review Act requires the president to submit to Congress the text of any nuclear deal reached with Iran. Submission of the nuclear deal triggers a period of review for Congress to analyze the agreement—a period during which the president is prohibited from taking any actions to lift statutory sanctions.

The precise language of the Review Act recognizes that a comprehensive nuclear deal includes many separate components, and that for members of Congress to accurately assess the merits of the agreement, Congress must have access to all portions of the agreement. Thus, the Review Act carefully defines “agreement” to include “annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements.”

We now know that there are at least two side agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that are integral to the nuclear deal but nevertheless will not be shared with Congress. These side agreements cover how a primary Iranian military site will be inspected for nuclear activity and how Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions of its nuclear program. Remarkably, it was only through a chance meeting between two members of Congress and the IAEA that the existence of these secret agreements came to light. The Obama administration apparently preferred to keep Congress in the dark, and even now the administration refuses to provide the side agreements to Congress. Indeed, Secretary of State John Kerry claims that even the president’s negotiating team doesn’t have access to these side agreements.

The Obama administration’s secrecy surrounding these side agreements casts serious doubts on its other claims about the nuclear deal, and it makes clear that the president has not been working with Congress in good faith. The president signed the Review Act into law knowing full well that it requires him to provide all side agreements to Congress. The administration should not have negotiated a final nuclear deal that allows portions of the agreement to be withheld from Congress, because the president knows that his agreeing to such a nuclear deal violates U.S. law and his duty under the Constitution’s Take Care Clause.

This violation of law with respect to the submission of the agreement has further implications under the Review Act. The 30- to 60-day congressional review period for the nuclear deal isn’t triggered until the president submits the *entire* agreement to Congress. If the nuclear deal hasn’t been submitted in full—because side agreements remain hidden—then the review period hasn’t even begun.

But the existence of secret agreements with the IAEA has deeper implications still. The available text of the nuclear deal states that nuclear, missile, and arms restrictions on Iran are to be lifted after certain periods of time (between five and ten years depending on the source and type) “or when the IAEA has reached the Broader Conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities, whichever is earlier.” In other words, at the discretion of the IAEA, these restrictions may be lifted significantly earlier than the milestone dates specified in the agreement, and the exact method by which the IAEA will reach this conclusion can’t be known to Congress or even the Obama administration, because the side agreements remain secret.

Finally, even if we set aside the constitutional defects and related consequences discussed above, it is unconscionable that the Obama administration would negotiate a final agreement that does not secure the release of the three American hostages held in Iran—Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati, and Jason Rezaian—or information on the whereabouts of a former FBI agent abducted in Iran, Robert Levinson. The nuclear deal provides Iran access to billions of dollars in unfrozen assets and the almost immediate removal of major U.S. and international economic sanctions on Iran’s financial and energy sectors, followed by the termination of most nuclear-related sanctions on Iran in just a few years. If Iran is unwilling to return American hostages to their families as part of this agreement, then we cannot trust that Iran will act in good faith as sanctions are lifted.

I support peaceful negotiations to prevent Iran from obtaining or using a nuclear weapon, and I kept an open mind about this agreement as it was being negotiated. It’s regrettable that the president has acted disingenuously in his interactions with Congress and continues to treat the Constitution with contempt. Despite the Obama administration’s false rhetoric, the choice here is not between this nuclear deal and war. A better agreement that complies with the Constitution and secures long-lasting peace is possible. (See “Constitutional Defects With the Iran Nuclear Deal” originally posted HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Needed: A Million More Like Kim Davis

/7 Comments/in , /by

Daniel-in-the-Lions-DenLike the Union troops hunkered at Fort Sumter, faithful Christians are now exiles in our own land, and under fire. Anti-Christian “progressives” have demanded unconditional surrender, and federal Judge David Bunning has fired the first mortar round.

[When I wrote this], a soft-spoken and well-respected civil servant of 27 years [sat] languishing, like some violent criminal, in a Kentucky prison. She [was] confined, indefinitely and without benefit of a trial, to a tiny cell. She [was] a political prisoner in a moral and spiritual war.

[See the story about Kim Davis’s release HERE]

Like so many accidental civil-rights heroes that came before her, Davis, a Democrat who was overwhelmingly elected as Rowan County clerk, has peacefully and graciously refused to violate her Christian conscience. She has declined to sign her name to marriage certificates that defy God’s natural design for the timeless institution and has requested, as a simple accommodation, that either her name be removed from the marriage licenses, thus eliminating her personalized acquiescence to the Supreme Court’s novel attempt to usurp God’s authority and redefine this cornerstone institution, or, alternatively, “to allow licenses to be issued by the chief executive of Rowan County or [by] developing a statewide, online marriage license process.”

That’s it. Simple, reasonable and fair. Our nation has a rich history of respecting the rights of conscientious objectors, and Kim Davis, like tens-of-millions of her brothers and sisters in Christ, is exactly that.

“There is absolutely no reason that this case has gone so far without reasonable people respecting and accommodating Kim Davis’ First Amendment rights,” said Mat Staver, Davis’ attorney and head of Liberty Counsel, a Christian civil rights organization.

“This is a heaven or hell issue for me and for every other Christian that believes,” Davis said on Thursday. “This is a fight worth fighting. … I’ve weighed the cost and I’m prepared to go to jail.”

And so she has.

Reasonable people can disagree on the propriety of Kim’s actions. Some say that she was right in refusing to violate her conscience by signing her name to a legal document that presumes to solemnize that which God condemns. Still others say that she needs to either “do her job” or resign — that she took an oath and is violating that oath.

Nevertheless, all reasonable people must agree that imprisoning this innocent woman for her conscience is both an outrage and gross violation of her constitutional liberties. Even the ACLU thought it was a bridge too far. The fact remains that people don’t shed their First Amendment rights when they become government employees. Kim Davis swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution, the Kentucky Constitution and the laws of the Bluegrass state. When she took her oath, United States law, the Kentucky Constitution and the Kentucky Revised Statutes all reflected the millennia-old definition of natural marriage: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky.”

The Kentucky Legislature has yet to change this law one jot or tittle. Instead, five lawyers in Washington, D.C., issued an opinion presuming to move the goalposts mid-game. Court opinions are not “the law of the land.” Judges don’t make laws — only the legislature can do that. Kim Davis is not defying the law; she is upholding it as codified.

Accordingly, she has repeatedly asked, “Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?”

Neither Judge Bunning nor anyone else can answer.

Because no such law exists.

In a statement on Friday, Mat Staver made the same point: “Not long ago 75 percent of Kentuckians passed the state’s marriage amendment. Today a Christian is imprisoned for believing what the voters affirmed: marriage is between a man and a woman. Five people on the Supreme Court imposed their will on 320 million Americans and unleashed a torrent of assaults against people of faith. Kim Davis is the first victim of this tragedy.”

Indeed, many scoffed at our warnings that Christians will someday be forced to either endorse “gay marriage” or go to jail. Well, scoff no more. That day has arrived. In just two months since the high court’s disgraceful Obergefell v. Hodges opinion, the full-on criminalization of Christianity has begun. You must either bow a knee before the false gods of same-sex “marriage” and “gay rights,” or face the fiery “contempt of court” furnace. We have moved from anecdotal instances of anti-Christian discrimination to systemic religious persecution.

Here’s the formula: 1) The government affirms homosexual behavior, abortion or some other institutionalized sin via judicial fiat; 2) Christian objects, refuses to disobey God and requests a reasonable religious accommodation; 3) The government denies the accommodation and jails the Christian for “contempt of court.”

You’re going to hear that term “contempt of court” a lot in coming days. It’s the straw man charge that will be utilized to imprison not just Christian public officials, but private citizens as well. Christian business owners, lawyers, private sector employees, parents of school-age children who don’t want their children indoctrinated by sexual anarchist propaganda and many others will be held in contempt of court, denied due process and incarcerated indefinitely.

The persecution isn’t coming. The persecution has arrived.

And that’s what it means to be a Christ follower.

Pray for a million more like Kim Davis. Is she perfect? Certainly not. None of us is. Indeed, before Kim’s transformational Christian re-birth four years ago, she was thrice divorced and “played in the devil’s playground” for much of her life.

She was lost. But now she’s found. God has an amazing way of taking empty, broken vessels, rebuilding their lives and then using them mightily for His glory and honor.

Stand, like Kim, fearlessly, lovingly and boldly for Christ, declaring, as did the apostles when faced with a similar decision, “We must obey God rather than any human authority” (see Acts 5:29).

Indeed, as the Bible’s Daniel, a “public official,” boldly refused to disobey God and commit sin by worshiping a pagan king, so too has Kim Davis honored our Lord by refusing to bow before a pagan court – by refusing to call evil good and good evil.

They wanted to make an example of her. Instead, they made a martyr of her.

And awakened a sleeping giant in the process. (For more from the author of “Needed: A Million More Like Kim Davis” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.