The GOP Income Tax Plan Is Too Clever by Half

/0 Comments/in , /by

Our tax code redistributes wealth, stifles growth, and is too complex. Most importantly, the progressive system is a primary reason why our government is not responsive to we the people — because the leviathan is built upon debt and a relatively small group of truly wealthy taxpaying individuals, thereby empowering the socialists to grow government without much backlash.

The GOP plan for individual tax rates does not fundamentally alter this dynamic, and in fact, it might make the overall income tax pie even more progressive and the code more convoluted.

Moreover, as I’ve noted before, tax policy is not the issue of our time. The domestic issues of our time are health care, regulations, and debt. The only people who pay a significant amount in taxes will not get much of a cut and in some cases will get no cut at all. And those who pay very little, by definition, can’t get much back. Contrast that with the Obamacare cost of an extra ten to fifteen thousand dollars a year for middle-income families not being subsidized, and you will see why it’s dumb for Republicans to write off health care and move on to taxes.

But we already knew that the GOP had no plans to repeal Obamacare or systematically restructure the source of federal taxation. Thus, the ultimate concern was that the new plan would outright raise taxes on a meaningful number of middle- and upper-middle-income Americans. But the tax cuts projected in the plan are insignificant for most people, and many, depending on their state and family size, might see a tax increase.

The details

The main reason the GOP is obsessing about taxes is because of the corporate lobbyist push for a business tax cut. They are certainly right to ask for one, and the clean cut from 35 percent to 20 percent is very pro-growth. Then, because the GOP is incapable of messaging to the American people that corporations are individual jobs and wages, they feel a need to deal with the individual tax code as well. But because cutting individual taxes would necessarily require a tax cut for the rich (those who pay most of the taxes) and the loss of revenue, they went on a wild goose chase to raise some rates while lowering others, cutting some deductions and credits while increasing others. The fact that they refuse to cut spending and are, in fact, increasing spending has boxed them into a corner.

Before getting into the weeds on the individual provisions of the plan, it’s important to note that the Joint Committee on Taxation scored the overall budgetary outcome of the individual tax reforms as $3.3 trillion in new cuts and $3.0 trillion in new tax revenue. The corporate tax cut is a $1.5 trillion cut. By definition, this essentially revenue-neutral cut on the individual side means that some will pay more in taxes, and it will not be those who already barely pay taxes or who make money off the tax code. It is quite evident that those at the bottom will pay even less and that the very wealthy might pay more under this plan, especially with the back-door 46 percent rate on wealthy job creators.

Before conservatives sign off on this plan, at a bare minimum, they must work out on paper that no significant group of people, particularly upper-middle-income families, will see their taxes rise. That is the ultimate act of political malpractice and would make the entire package fall flat.

For the purpose of this analysis, I focus mainly on how the main provisions of the bill affect middle-income and upper-middle-income families who file jointly. Some of the ancillary provisions and the effects on other income levels will be addressed in future columns.

Middle-income and upper-middle-income brackets:

Details: The current seven tax brackets would be consolidated into four brackets: 12 percent, 25 percent, 35 percent, and 39.6 percent. For married couples, the low 12 percent rate would last all the way until $90,000 of income, the point at which the 25 percent rate would kick in. At present, that rate kicks in at $75,900. Also, under current law, all income from $18,000 to $75,900 is taxed at 15 percent; now it will go down to 12 percent. This, in a vacuum, is a significant tax cut. The 25 percent rate goes all the way through $260,000 of income under the GOP plan, whereas under current law most of that income is taxed at the 28 percent tax bracket. However, at $260,000 is where you get hit with the 35 percent rate, whereas under current law, that high rate doesn’t kick in until $416,000 of income.

Outcome: As you can see, this is a clean tax cut for those earning below $260,000. For those earning between $260,000 and $416,000, which includes a lot of hard-working successful professionals where both spouses have good jobs, this is something of a wash, but for most will still be a cut. However, the steep cliff of paying such a significantly higher rate on increased income is anti-growth. Which is why it’s dumb to collapse rates for the sake of it. Once you agree to the premise of a progressive, graduated income tax, the extra gradations are really necessary.

Standard deduction doubled/personal exemption eliminated:

Details: On the one hand, this bill would double the standard deduction for individuals from $6,350 to $12,700 and for couples from $12,000 to $24,000. On the other hand, it abolishes the personal exemption, which deducts $4,050 per person in the family, including the filer.

Outcome: For individuals, this is a clean tax cut because the $6,350 in increased standard deduction would outweigh the loss of $4,050 personal exemption. And given that most individuals don’t own homes, they are likely not itemizing deductions.

For families, any household with four or more individuals is clearly losing more in the exemption ($4,050 X 4+) than gaining with doubling the standard deduction ($12,000). Plus, most families who own homes itemize their deductions anyway and might still take that route even with the expanded standard deduction. However, coupled with the reduced marginal tax rates and the extra $600 in tax credit for every child (see next point), many, but not all, will still come out on top.

Elimination of state and local income tax (SALT) deduction:

Details: Under current law, individuals below the AMT-threshold income can deduct all state and local income taxes and property taxes from their income for purposes of federal income taxes. This bill would abolish the deduction for income taxes but allow for up to a $10,000 deduction for property taxes. It also limits the mortgage interest deduction to $500,000 worth of mortgage interest on homes purchased after the enactment date, but not on existing mortgages.

Outcome: The deduction for state income and property taxes, in conjunction with the mortgage interest deduction and charitable deduction, is why almost every middle- and upper-middle-income family that owns a home chooses to itemize deductions rather than take the standard deduction of $12,000. Even with the doubling of the standard deduction, most of these families above a certain income level, particularly those who tithe or give large amounts of charity, still deduct over $24,000 in itemization. By getting rid of the state and local deduction, most of those families will be placed into a scenario where it’s no longer worthwhile to itemize. It will de-incentivize charity, in contrast to current law.

Also, the GOP made the worst possible compromise on SALT. State income taxes are universal to almost every taxpayer in most states. That deduction was completely abolished. Yet, not only did they not abolish the real estate tax deduction, they have a cap of $10,000, which only applies to either wealthy homes or very high tax areas. The better compromise would have been to cap all SALT at $10K — no matter the breakdown. This was a handout to the realtors. Many individuals, not just in high tax states, will wind up paying more in taxes, even after the other cuts.

Expanded child tax credit
Details: This bill would expand the child tax credit from $1,000 to $1,600 per child. It would also raise the income threshold for phasing out this credit. Under current law, married families earning over $110,000 see their credit reduced by $50 per $1,000 of income over that threshold. This bill would dramatically raise that cap, to $230,000.

Outcome: In a vacuum, this is one of the best provisions of the bill. It is pro-family and also rectifies an unfair part of the tax code for upper-middle-income families. Phasing out the credit for those who work hard discourages upward mobility and is fundamentally unfair, especially when lower-income earners, in addition to the other programs, get to enjoy the tax credit to the point where it pays them money when their tax liability is zero (a “refundable” credit). It’s also important to note that the expanded portion of the credit — the extra $600 — is not refundable. A further positive provision is that the bill would require Social Security numbers to receive refundable tax credits, ensuring that most illegal aliens will not benefit from them.

However, the million-dollar question is whether the expanded child tax credit is enough to offset the increases on upper-middle-income families as a result of elimination of deductions and the personal exemption.

Abolishes AMT
The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would be abolished. For many tax filers, this provision is a wash because the main outcome of the AMT is that it eliminates the personal exemption and credits and deductions. The new bill eliminates the AMT but abolishes those exemptions and deductions for everyone. However, this provision is very positive for those earning enough to be in the AMT but not too much to be locked out of the child tax credit. Thanks to the increase in phase-out amount (see previous point), families earning roughly $180K-$280K will get to receive most or all of the credit, thanks to the increase in threshold, but won’t see it abolished because the AMT is eliminated.

Bottom line: Revenue-neutral tax cut is not worth the political capital it will use

This proposal makes many systemic changes, without resulting in systemic outcome changes and a clear tax cut for everyone. While some will be slightly better off, others will pay slightly more. Using tax software and the expertise of my CPA brother-in-law, I calculated my 2016 tax return and compared it to the proposed changes. The result? I’d actually pay $169 more in taxes. And I’m not an outlying taxpayer. I’m a typical family of five in the 25 percent tax bracket, with a $350,000 home. While Maryland has a high income tax, it’s not among the highest, and my county property taxes are very average. If people like me will not see a tax cut, then many in the breadbasket of the GOP base will not see a tax cut.

Obviously, location and family size will make different stories, but no typical middle-income family (and, I would argue, even upper-income family) should pay more in taxes. That is political malpractice.

The liability of increasing the tax burden of a middle-income family by $500-$1000 per year is much more potent than the political reward for giving people a $500-$1,000 cut.

Additionally, I hope to address in a separate column the provision of this bill that uses the “chained CPI,” a less generous metric, to index income thresholds of the brackets to inflation. Over time, this will blunt some of the benefit of the rate reductions while still retaining the full loss of the deductions.

What Republicans should do instead

To rectify the problems, Republicans should do one or a mixture of the following:

Repeal Obamacare, which is the biggest tax on consumers, and replace it with free-market health care, which would represent the biggest spending cut of all policies. This will free up revenue for a real tax cut.

Focus for the next year on cutting other spending and cutting regulations, and save tax cuts for later.

Write a more systemic reform of the code, or abolish withholdings and require that everyone either write a check or receive a payment on April 15. That way everyone will know who actually pays taxes and how much they pay.

For now, stick with only the corporate tax cut and properly message it to the American people.

Repeat the Bush tax cuts — a clean, across-the-board slashing of rates along with the child tax cut expansion and increase in phase-out for upper-middle-income families. This will ensure that everyone gets a tax cut and that there are no political problems that embarrass us with our own voters.

In other words, either cut spending, create a real tax cut, or preferably both. But to keep spending high and box themselves into a revenue-neutral tax cut will result in the worst political and policy outcomes imaginable.

Republicans were created to cut taxes. They clearly don’t do anything else well in fiscal, social, and national security policy. Come on, Republicans, at least pretend: You have one job. (For more from the author of “The GOP Income Tax Plan Is Too Clever by Half” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Kevin Spacey’s Abuse of Male Minor Exposes Link Between Homosexuality and Pedophilia

/0 Comments/in , /by

Responding to an accusation of attempted rape of a 14-year-old boy, actor Kevin Spacey defended himself by claiming to be homosexual . . .

Whether Spacey intended it or not, the statement goes from him trying to excuse imposing himself sexually on a minor while possibly drunk to suggesting that his actions may have something to do with him being homosexual . . .

But pro-family leaders say that homosexuality and pederasty are linked together far more than homosexual activists are willing to admit in public.

“How interesting that Kevin Spacey played the ‘gay card’ in an attempt to win sympathy after evidence of his attempted molestation of a Hollywood boy-actor came out,” Americans for Truth’s Peter LaBarbera told LifeSiteNews.

“We know that there is a long history of pedophilia tied to the homosexual movement,” LaBarbera asserted. “We also know that many prominent ‘gay’ men like CNN’s Don Lemon were victimized by older male sexual predators when they were boys.” (Read more from “Kevin Spacey’s Abuse of Male Minor Exposes Link Between Homosexuality and Pedophilia” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Professional Sport Franchises Are Parasites on Their Communities

/0 Comments/in , /by

Shortly before I was born, Milwaukee’s socialist government built a government-financed baseball stadium and enticed the Boston Braves to abandon the East Coast. Eventually, Atlanta would give Milwaukee a taste of its own medicine, and lure the Braves south. All my life, professional sport franchises have been pressuring local governments to share the costs and risks of building their enormously expensive facilities on prime urban real estate.

If you don’t live in a major metropolitan area, you might be breathing a sigh of relief now. But not so fast – due to the municipalities’ ability to issue tax-free bonds, your federal government effectively assumes a large fraction of the cities’ largesse to the sport cartels. Do you live in rural downstate Indiana? We thank you for your support. You helped subsidize Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis by $163 million in federal tax benefits.

Hate the Chicago Bears? Sorry about that, but you’ve subsidized Soldier Field by $205 million. I hope you’re a Yankees fan, because you’re on the hook for $431 million in the Bronx. Oh, and Barack Obama’s favorite rapper Jay Z thanks you too, even though he no longer owns the Barclays Center or its tenant Brooklyn Nets. Just think how much more valuable his stake was, and how much more he could sell it for, when enhanced by a whopping $122 million tax benefit.

Since 2000, 36 new professional sports stadiums have been financed in part by tax-free municipal bonds. According to the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, federal taxpayers have absorbed $3.2 billion of the cost of building private sport stadiums during that time. It’s even more ($3.7 billion) if you include the tax benefits to high-income investors who buy the tax-free municipal bonds that build the stadiums.

If you’re bundling up for work in Fairbanks today, you may be wondering why you should guarantee the profitability of a New York City team already valued at $3.4 billion, 4,000 miles away. I can’t help you with that. I don’t even understand why locals should subsidize a privately-owned professional team.

The overall subsidy since 2000, including state and municipal contributions, is a much bigger number, somewhere between $10 billion and $12 billion. You could build a lot of bridges and hospital wings with that kind of money. Maybe cities wouldn’t need to send pink slips to kindergarten teachers and rookie cops if they didn’t give the store away to sport tycoons.

I’ve heard the claims that professional sport franchises are an important driver of economic development. I’ve heard that from Chamber of Commerce go-getters, I’ve heard that from real estate developers. Of course, I’ve heard that from sport tycoons. But guess who I’ve never heard that from? Economists.

“NFL stadiums do not generate significant local economic growth,” Stanford economist Roger Noll said in 2015, “and the incremental tax revenue is not sufficient to cover any significant financial contribution by the city.”

“One should not anticipate,” sports economist Andrew Zimbalist told the Freakonomics blog in 2009, “that a team or facility will by itself either increase employment or raise per capita income in a metropolitan area.”

Economics is a notoriously contentious discipline. Economists disagree a lot. But Wake Forest economist Robert Whaples listed the economic impact of sport stadium subsidies as an area of broad consensus among North American economists in a 2006 article entitled “Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!”

His survey indicated that 87 percent of economists agree that “local and state governments in the U.S. should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises.”

Of course huge new stadiums generate economic development in their immediate vicinity, in restaurants, bars, condos and office space. Especially if built in a blighted area, a stadium may revitalize its entire neighborhood. The effect of the stadiums’ inspirational architecture has been compared to Old World cathedrals.

Why, then, do most economists throw cold water on the idea of sport stadiums as an engine of a city’s economic development? Because of the concept of opportunity cost. They emphasize net economic development, not gross. Because the revenue that flows to the sport franchise – and to its neighborhood – comes from somewhere.

Most families have finite money available for entertainment. It’s not unlimited. Once they spend it on a professional football game, they can’t spend it on camping, bowling, theater or fishing rods. So while the immediate vicinity of the stadium may look very prosperous, that doesn’t translate into overall economic development for the city or region. It’s mostly a redistribution and a concentration of wealth from elsewhere in the city. How many new drive-in movies have opened since the Colts came to Indianapolis? How many bait shops are left there?

Professor Michael Leeds, chairman of the Temple University economics department, estimates that a major-league baseball team, with 81 home games, has “about the same impact on a community as a midsize department store.” He has also calculated the economic impact if every major professional sports franchise, including the Bears, the Bulls, the Cubs, the White Sox and the Blackhawks were to leave Chicago: less than one percent.

As a Federal Reserve publication observed in May 2017, government money used to subsidize a stadium also has opportunity costs. That’s referring to bridges, schools, hospitals, roads, airports, police, teachers, parks and infrastructure that a community can’t afford anymore because it was too generous with wealthy sport cartels.

These bonds aren’t paid off quickly. St. Louis is still paying off its stadium after the fickle Rams went back to California. Future generations have to pay off our generation’s reckless spending, but they don’t have to build schools or hospitals for their own families. That’s optional. They may or may not be able to do that, because of our adolescent infatuation with mass spectacles and athletic celebrity. Let’s grow up, already.

Forbes Editor’s Deranged Terror Tweet Shows Depravity of the Left

/0 Comments/in , , /by

How sick do you have to be to downplay a terror attack in the name of climate science?

Eight people are dead after a terrorist plowed a truck into pedestrians on a lower Manhattan bike path. The suspect, identified by law enforcement officials as 29-year-old Sayfullo Saipov, reportedly screamed “Allahu akbar” as he exited the vehicle waving guns after crashing into a school bus. He was shot by a uniformed police officer and is now in custody. New York Police Commissioner James O’Neill said a paintball gun and pellet gun were recovered at the scene.

Saipov is reportedly an Uzbek national who came to the U.S. in 2010. A Muslim immigrant committing an act of terror on U.S. soil creates a narrative the Left absolutely does not want to talk about, and so already many in the media are twisting the facts. Whether it’s CNN reporting that Saipov “was yelling ‘God is great’ in Arabic” or Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., urging New Yorkers to carry on as if there is no radical Islamic terrorism problem, too many are obscuring the reality.

Some are more hamfisted than others, like Forbes deputy editor Halah Touryalai who thinks EPA administrator Scott Pruitt is scarier than radical Islamic terrorism.

The tweet links to an article from Mother Jones that attacks Pruitt for quoting the Bible as he explained his decision to bar scientists who receive federal grants from serving on independent science advisory committees.

“In the book of Joshua there is a story about Joshua leading the people of Israel into the promised land after Moses passed away,” Pruitt said Tuesday. “And Joshua says to the people of Israel choose this day whom you’re going to serve. And I would say to you this is sort of like the ‘Joshua Principle’ that as it relates to grants to this agency, you are going to have to choose either service on the committee to provide counsel to us in an independent fashion or you can choose grants, but you cannot do both.”

So, according to this Forbes’ deputy editor, Scott Pruitt’s decision is scarier than a murderous jihad attack, which today, claimed the lives of eight people in New York.

That is deranged. (For more from the author of “Forbes Editor’s Deranged Terror Tweet Shows Depravity of the Left” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Attorney: How Robert Mueller Tried to Entrap Me

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Is special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, appointed in mid-May to lead the investigation into suspected ties between Donald Trump’s campaign and various shady (aren’t they all?) Russian officials, the choirboy that he’s being touted to be, or is he more akin to a modern-day Tomas de Torquemada, the Castilian Dominican friar who was the first Grand Inquisitor in the 15th Century Spanish Inquisition?. . .

But I have known Mueller during key moments of his career as a federal prosecutor. My experience has taught me to approach whatever he does in the Trump investigation with a requisite degree of skepticism or, at the very least, extreme caution.

When Mueller was the acting United States Attorney in Boston, I was defense counsel in a federal criminal case in which a rather odd fellow contacted me to tell me that he had information that could assist my client. He asked to see me, and I agreed to meet. He walked into my office wearing a striking, flowing white gauze-like shirt and sat down across from me at the conference table. He was prepared, he said, to give me an affidavit to the effect that certain real estate owned by my client was purchased with lawful currency rather than, as Mueller’s office was claiming, the proceeds of illegal drug activities.

My secretary typed up the affidavit that the witness was going to sign. Just as he picked up the pen, he looked at me and said something like: “You know, all of this is actually false, but your client is an old friend of mine and I want to help him.” As I threw the putative witness out of my office, I noticed, under the flowing white shirt, a lump on his back – he was obviously wired and recording every word between us.

Years later I ran into Mueller, and I told him of my disappointment in being the target of a sting where there was no reason to think that I would knowingly present perjured evidence to a court. Mueller, half-apologetically, told me that he never really thought that I would suborn perjury, but that he had a duty to pursue the lead given to him. (That “lead,” of course, was provided by a fellow that we lawyers, among ourselves, would indelicately refer to as a “scumbag.”) (Read more from “Silverglate: How Robert Mueller Tried to Entrap Me” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Aspiring Pastor Stabs Wife 123 Times, Then Blames…

/0 Comments/in , /by

Police say an aspiring pastor in North Carolina stabbed and cut his wife 123 times while he was was in a cough syrup-induced stupor.

Matthew James Phelps, 28, said he woke up and discovered his wife’s blood-saturated body next to him in their North Raleigh home on Sept. 1, the News and Observer reported.

“I think I killed my … there’s blood all over me,” Phelps told a 9-1-1 operator, “and there’s a bloody knife on the bed. I think I did it.”

An autopsy released Tuesday states that his wife, Lauren Hugelmaier Phelps, 29, sustained 44 cuts and stab wounds on her head and neck. Others were found on her body and arms. Some of her wounds were reportedly more than four inches deep. Phelps, who has no previous criminal record, has been charged with first-degree murder. He is being held without bail at the Wake County Jail. (Read more from “Aspiring Pastor Stabs Wife 123 Times, Then Blames…” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

NFL: Blame the Media for Enflaming Tensions

/0 Comments/in , /by

Incongruously, the media has been more focused these days on the NFL/national anthem flap than the most deadly shooting in U.S. history that occurred a mere two weeks ago in Las Vegas, Nevada. That by itself should say something. The media has been curiously incurious to dig too deeply into the past of Nevada shooter Stephen Paddock. What are they afraid they will find, another James Hodgkinson?

But the NFL controversy would not exist if the grandstanding Colin Kaepernick had not decided to lend his name to the Black Lives Matter movement by sitting down for the national anthem. And that wouldn’t have happened if a bunch of St. Louis (now Los Angeles) Rams had not made a “hands up, don’t shoot” gesture at a football game shortly after the acquittal of the police officer who shot Michael Brown in self-defense. And that wouldn’t have happened if the media hadn’t promoted the notion that Brown, Freddie Gray , and Trayvon Martin were simply innocent victims, instead of the criminals they were.

The media deliberately enflamed tensions in minority communities by promoting the lie rather than telling the truth. Facts were ignored, suppressed, or misconstrued as simply defensive reactions to the “racist” charge. The resulting outrage sparked riots that turned entire inner-city neighborhoods — where black families live and work — into cinders. An unprecedented rash of police assassinations followed.

The media has blood on its hands. But did that stop it?

Media expanded the narrative by using President Trump’s very wise and responsible actions on immigration to smear him and anyone associated with him as “racists,” “bigots,” and “Islamophobes.” This in turn signaled the radical Left antifa communists to weaponize the “racist” charge, taking to the streets to protest this “Nazi” takeover by Donald Trump. This calculated message of hate has in turn encouraged the Black Lives Matter crowd to become even more sanctimonious than they were before (but no less violent).

Victimhood is the new heroism in America.

Leftists now lunge at any opportunity to attack public messages of support for the president and this country. A restaurant in Phoenix posted a Facebook message supporting Trump and opposing “political correctness.” The restaurant promised not to show NFL games “until the organization got it together.”

The post went viral and the restaurant was forced to close its doors on October 9 following threats it received. According to owner Ron Sanchez, “People threatened to burn down the restaurant with the owners in it. It’s a crazy world we’re in.”

Local ABC News reporter Jennifer Martinez tweeted with perhaps a bit too much enthusiasm: “This was the viral FB post that Cup It Up American Grill posted & deleted after backlash. Restaurant is closed indefinitely.”

The media has deliberately fanned these flames. But all of it is based on a lie. Police do not oppress blacks. In fact, an opposite case can be made. The following chart shows that while blacks comprise only 13 percent of the U.S. population they represent almost 40 percent of fatal attacks on police.

Meanwhile, black crime is off the charts in comparison with every other racial group in this country. Critics argue that blacks’ 40 percent share among U.S. prison populations is direct evidence of institutional racism (see table below). In a color-blind society, they charge, incarcerated black populations would reflect their 13 percent share of the general population.

Source: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/rates.html

However, if black crime rates were the guide, it would seem that blacks are, if anything, underrepresented in prison populations. Take homicides for example. The table below shows that, despite representing 13 percent of the American population, blacks commit by far the majority of murders. Stats for 2015 are the latest available. Prior years, however, show similar results. Blacks also commit a disproportionate number in all other categories of violent crime.

There are many more statistics that reinforce this point. I could go on and on. Blacks are not over-represented in prisons because of institutional bias, they are over-represented because they commit more crimes. It is high time we get honest about that fact. Doubtless the SJWs will call me a racist for even mentioning it. But there is nothing racist about telling the truth. You can’t fix a problem until you are willing to admit you have one.

But the sad truth is that inner-city blacks do have plenty to be angry about. The media understands this and knows it can count on black anger so it rubs salt in the wound and misdirects the anger toward the media’s political opponents — i.e. conservatives, the one and only group consistently willing to stick its neck out to offer solutions that work.

But we rarely get the chance. The swamp doesn’t like real ideas, because they usually involve some kind of sacrifice. Just think about what happened with Obamacare. The GOP offered multiple proposals to abolish it when they knew it wouldn’t happen. But the minute they had the majority, and a real opportunity? Well, there were too many lobbyists to disappoint. Don’t get me wrong. The swamp is all about sacrifice — our sacrifice, but not theirs. And Democrats? Perish the thought!

Inner cities are falling apart before our eyes. Buildings are abandoned and crumbling. Schools teach much about how blacks have been wronged, but little that will help them get right. Massive amounts of drug abuse, prostitution, and violence plague inner cities. More people were murdered in inner-city Chicago last month than the total killed in the Las Vegas shooting. Meanwhile, to add outrage to injury, immigrants, both legal and illegal, are welcomed into the inner city to take those jobs that do exist. All this can be laid at Democrats’ feet — but they could never get away with it without a complicit press.

If I were black I’d be seeing red.

But not because of police brutality or excessive police shootings. If anything, there needs to be more police present in inner-city neighborhoods, and those black residents who understand this have been intimidated into stony silence while the left-wing fanatics among them rage and burn. Even Black Lives Matter people don’t buy this. Their real objection is capitalism. Why? Because the leaders of that movement are communists!

Not because of phony “white privilege (a concept invented by a hardcore Communist),” or “unequal access.” Blacks have been given more “access,” — more special grants, racial preferences in hiring and lending, and more welfare as a percent of their population than any other group, except refugees and certain other immigrants, (and what’s with that?)

I’d be seeing red because of the horrible way blacks have been used by the establishment Left, black and white, to entrench itself in power. Chicago, New York, Detroit, Baltimore — name the city. If a Democrat runs it, it’s a mess. They have entrenched themselves in power and suck tax resources like a bottomless sinkhole.

The only politician in recent memory who has offered to help actually remedy this problem is… wait for it… Donald Trump. If you recall, candidate Trump famously asked “What do you have to lose?”

The Democrats have failed completely in the inner cities… year after year, failure after failure, worse numbers after worse numbers; poverty, rejection, horrible education, no housing, no homes, no ownership. Crime at levels that nobody’s seen! You can go to war zones, in countries that we are fighting, and it’s safer than living in some of our inner cities! They’re run by the Democrats. And I ask you this… What do you have to lose?

Really, what do they have to lose? The media has abandoned the American people, and the lies they promote have had the most profound effect in inner cities, deliberately! The Democrats and establishment Republicans have abandoned the American people, and the lies they promote have had the most profound effect in inner cities. The hard left protesting in the streets and shouting “shut it down!” could care less about the issues they protest. Their real goal is anarchy, and the lies they promote have had the most profound effect in inner cities, deliberately!

Deliberately! (For more from the author of “NFL: Blame the Media for Enflaming Tensions” please click HERE)

_________________________________________

James Simpson is an investigative journalist, businessman and author. His latest book is The Red Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America. Follow Jim on Twitter and…

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Liberal Hollywood Destroys Any Credibility It Had Left

/0 Comments/in , , /by

In the immortal words of the great prophet Dave Chappelle, “You played yourself.”

From this time forward, when any insipidly sanctimonious Hollywood star comes forward to lecture us on Marxist agitprop masquerading as do-gooderism, the rest of America that does most of the living and dying around here can simply dismiss such virtue signaling with the following two words: “Harvey Weinstein.”

How ironic is it that in 2016, Hollywood deservedly awarded its coveted Best Picture award to the fantastic movie “Spotlight,” about the journalistic quest to break the long-hidden child abuse scandal within the Catholic Church — when many, too many, of those in attendance at the Oscars that evening were knowingly concealing a sexual predator of their own, masquerading as a movie mogul.

In fact, the “Los Angeles Times” wrote a feature about those 2016 Oscars and how rare it was for the “Diet Coke swigging, chain-smoking master” (as they described Weinstein) to be shut out from Hollywood’s biggest night. Absent from that piece was any mention of how Weinstein turned the already infamous casting couch into his personal hunting ground.

Of course, in fairness to the Times, no one is going to publish such an explosive story about such a powerful figure without eyewitness testimony. And many in the liberal media have done yeoman’s work these past few days not only blowing the lid off this story once some finally came forward, but also demanding that Democratic politicians like the Clintons and Obamas come clean about their cozy relationship with Weinstein.

Yet at this point in the story, I feel compelled to defend Hillary Clinton’s reluctance to publicly condemn her friend and neighbor Weinstein. After all, if you spent 30 years publicly covering for a predatory lout of a husband such as hers, you wouldn’t have much credibility in condemning Weinstein, either.

But I digress.

Many of the same questions once asked about the Catholic Church must now be asked about Hollywood. Even many fellow believers couldn’t reconcile the Church’s historic stance on the sanctity of human life and justice with its systemic willingness to aid and abet pedophiles. And now I would imagine there are many liberals, who truly pride themselves on egalitarian feminism and social justice, wondering how so many of their biggest celebrity spokespeople for those causes befriended and did business with a creep like Weinstein — while knowing this all along.

Politics aside, as a father of two daughters, let alone a fellow human being, it’s heartbreaking to read actress Rose McGowan’s Twitter feed the past few days. She attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable, while confronting and outing all those in Hollywood who betrayed vulnerable women like her for years.

But then there’s the cognitive dissonance displayed by actress Jessica Chastain, who starred in a movie about the alleged evils of guns and gun owners last year.

Chastain now admits she was “warned from the beginning” about Weinstein. Then why star in a movie about disarming the law-abiding? What sense does it make to know there is systemic abuse of women going on in your industry and then advocate for disarming them? How many women whom Weinstein intimidated, scared, and abused over the years would’ve liked the means to defend themselves from such a powerful man if need be?

Speaking of cognitive dissonance …

Sadly, the worldview and activism promoted by liberal Hollywood allowed a creep like Weinstein not only to rise to power, but to use his powerful pedestal to become a full-fledged predator. For when you are applauding the life and death of Hugh Hefner one week, but then mortified at Weinstein taking Hefner’s life work to its most problematic conclusion the next, it’s clear you believe you live in a world where two plus two doesn’t equal four.

The elevation of recreational sex to the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The removal of absolute moral standards. Believing justice can be achieved publicly without first confronting the injustice afflicting us personally. Seeing life as simply a matter of materialistic successes, and if you have red in your ledger you can make up for it on your own with good deeds (like Weinstein trying to make penance last week by going after the NRA). The notion that he who has the gold gets to make all the rules, and it’s okay to compromise your personal value system for self-actualization or success.

This is Hollywood’s DNA.

However, this is where the comparisons between Hollywood and the Catholic Church’s coddling of predators comes to an end. For the Catholic Church stained its reputation by betraying the iconography on its stained glass windows. On the other hand, Weinstein is the embodiment of the humanist stain that Hollywood has become.

That’s why Weinstein was so successful and made others so successful in that town, too. Weinstein wasn’t swimming against the Hollywood tide; he was spawned from it. (For more from the author of “Liberal Hollywood Destroys Any Credibility It Had Left” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Left’s Attacks Are Getting Personal, Incredibly Violent – Felony Assaults on Conservative Blogger

/0 Comments/in , , /by

We have been treated to a year of rioting and violence over the mere hint that a conservative may speak at some college. The intolerant, fascistic, violent Left seems determined to demonstrate just how vicious and despotic its instincts are.

And the Left has apparently upped its game even further now. Well-known blogger and investigative journalist Warner Todd Huston woke up in the middle of the night this weekend to discover his car on fire. There is no reason to mistake this as some kind of accident and every reason to assume the worst. Over the past year, his house has been pelted with eggs and hate graffiti, his flags have been desecrated and destroyed, and now this. (Huston wrote his own account of what happened.)

According to Warner, in the first incident, a flag was removed from a flag staff on his house and left shredded on the front lawn. He replaced the flag, but within weeks it was gone. He put up another flag, this time of the U.S. Army seal. Shortly thereafter a corner of the flag was burned and above it was scribbled “Die Dogs.”

Charming.

Warner had already had his garage door egged. With the flag burned and the threatening message, he decided to file a report with the police. Then his garage door was again egged, this time with the message “racist” written on it.

Warner doesn’t hide who he is or what he does. He writes about immigration and the issues with Islam, along with many other issues of interest to real Americans. In the Left’s vernacular that means “racist!” But now their vandalism and destruction of property is no longer limited to statues and other symbols in public parks. Now it is getting personal, at least in Warner’s neighborhood.

After this second incident with the eggs and graffiti, he filed another police report. Finally, Warner awoke in the middle of the night Saturday at about 1 a.m. to notice a glowing outside his window. Going out to investigate he found his car in flames.

I was awakened by a noise outside my home. I can’t really say what the noise was as it woke me from a deep sleep … I looked at my window and saw what struck me as a strange light outside. So, I went to the front door …

The police came to investigate but claimed they couldn’t classify it as arson because there was no evidence. Warner, however, found a melted plastic bottle sitting on the seat where the fire started. He said the bottle cap was on the floor of the car and it smelled like gasoline. The bottle and cap will appear in the official firefighters’ photos, which were taken that night. We can only hope the police will find that evidence compelling.

Warner maintains his own website, Publius’ Forumhttps://www.gofundme.com/vandals-burned-my-dads-car. He began blogging in 2001, making a name for himself in the “blogosphere” early on. He got in on the ground floor at the urging of the late Andrew Breitbart when Andrew began his now-famous website in 2008. Warner has continued to write for Breitbart since then, in addition to many other publications that carry his work.

Huston’s son has set up a GoFundMe page in hopes of raising enough funds to replace his car. Huston says it was an old car, only covered by liability insurance. For most in this business, writing does not make one rich, or even comfortable. It is a labor of love and commitment to our beloved country – a nation now threatened by the forces of anarchy. (For more from the author of “The Left’s Attacks Are Getting Personal” please click HERE)

Tim Murphy: ‘Consistent’ Pro-Lifer

/0 Comments/in , /by

For the last two days, I have seen a series of frantic headlines — wounded and outraged on one side, gleeful and taunting on the other — about Representative Tim Murphy, the pro-life Congressman who reportedly pressured his mistress to have an abortion.

The fact that this happened is no more a surprise to me than it is to the mocking pro-choice commenters like CNN writer Jill Filipovic, who opened her commentary by asking “When is abortion OK even for the most vociferous pro-lifer? When that person needs one, of course.”

I’ll get to Filipovic’s comment and why I agree with that one in a moment. The first and foremost question on my mind is, why does the pro-life movement seem to feel so betrayed?

I looked up Murphy’s pro-life voting record. Down the line, he’s voted for 20-week bans, defunding bills, born alive infant protection acts, and the like. Not once has he introduced or voted for anything that would prohibit the killing of children younger than 20 weeks.

So if his mistress was less than 20 weeks pregnant (as something like 98% of pregnant women who obtain abortions are), Murphy’s action was entirely consistent with his position as a pro-life politician.

Of course pro-lifers feel betrayed because they think a pro-life politician is someone who actually believes abortion is evil, and who votes for 20-week bans as a step toward 12-week bans, which will be a step toward life at conception acts. Why they still think this after 45 years is a mystery. But the sooner they discover that pro-life politicians are just that — politicians — the sooner they can begin to use their unified voice to demand something real and meaningful. Voting for “pro-life” bills is how a politician keeps his conservative voter base. Wearing the moniker “pro-life” is how our current president convinced half the country that he represented their values, when in fact he stands in direct opposition to the values of any consistently moral person (in fact, I would bet money that Donald Trump has paid for abortions himself, but if he hasn’t, he has openly supported and participated in all kinds of sins that lead to it and prop it up).

Which leads me to why Filipovic was correct ( or rather one or two of her comments were). In fact, she’s saying what many abolitionists have also said.

There has been a longstanding battle between pro-life apologists and abolitionists about whether to use words like “sin” in reference to abortion. The prevailing pro-life opinion is that the use of theological terms will work against “saving babies” and that it is far better to argue with humanists and atheists from their own worldview, using arguments like the S.L.E.D. test.

The problem is, it’s possible (and easy in some cases) to convince people from an intellectual standpoint that abortion is murder. But when those same people are in dire circumstances, or need to cover up affairs, or find themselves in the valley of decision, intellectual assent to an idea is not enough to restrain them. Intellectual assent does not change the heart.

That’s why abolitionists insist on saying that abortion is sin, and that the answer to sin is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Only the Gospel has the power to take a heart of stone and turn it to a heart of flesh. Only the Gospel can make the murder of a child (and all the wickedness that leads up to it) unthinkable.

A pro-life politician can be consistently pro-life by voting for 20-week bans and killing his own children before they reach 20 weeks. In fact, that’s what we should expect in today’s culture. But a man whose mind has been renewed, who has been washed clean by the blood of Christ, who no longer lives for his own desires but for the good of others, who loves God and all those created in His image… that man should neither vote for a 20-week ban NOR would he kill his own children to cover up an affair. (For more from the author of “Tim Murphy: ‘Consistent’ Pro-Lifer” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.