Idaho’s ‘Free Market’ Education Program Is Just Another Form of Government Control

/0 Comments/in , /by

A new program the Idaho Department of Education is calling “Advanced Opportunities” is being hailed as a “revolutionary” and “free-market” approach to improve student outcomes. The program works by giving public school students a $1,500 scholarship for every year skipped and graduated early, which can then be used for post-secondary education in the state.

The term “free market” appears to have slowly morphed into code for the insidious meddling of behavioral economics, invariably carried out with the power of government. In fact, there’s nothing market-based about subsidies, wealth redistribution, and a centrally directed incentive structure that treats students as pawns in a master plan rather than as capable, self-actualizing individuals.

In fairness, I can see where the program’s proponents are coming from. Students who are too bright to be stuck in high school for four years are allowed to leave early, and use the taxpayer resources they would have consumed for more productive endeavors. Sounds great. But, in fact, this reeks of social engineering.

In a free market, people pay for services they wish to consume. You pay for school, because you want what it has to offer, including classes and a diploma. In Idaho’s perverse model, it is the schools that effectively pay students for obtaining a diploma, which is precisely backward from how business is supposed to work.

If families were receiving back the same amount they pay in taxes for schools, that would be one thing, but in most cases not only will they receive significantly more (also known as a government subsidy), it is the state that gets to choose how those funds are spent. This is the illusion of choice — not actually allowing students to self-direct their learning.

Furthermore, the Idaho program assumes that early graduation is the best thing for students. Government always presumes to know what students need. And while some would undoubtedly flourish from graduating early, others would not. Yet the incentives are purposely lined up to encourage one behavior over the other, without any regard for individual variation.

When you establish these centralized incentives, it can push students in the wrong direction, or make them feel forced into a path they wouldn’t have chosen.

There’s a simpler and better way to reform education without all this technocratic tinkering. If you want to give students more options, repeal mandatory education laws and let them choose. If you want people to have more resources for education, stop taxing them for schools they don’t want to go to.

The problem with education policy is that it has all become about the details, while failing to examine fundamental philosophies of learning and childhood. It would be hard to think of a better example of missing the forest for the trees.

Policy becomes an endless debate about which forms of control work best, with nobody stopping to ask whether we need to control people at all. Freedom is never on the table.

You can tinker with funding and incentive structures forever, arguing over the minutia of whether vouchers are preferable to charter schools. But until we start to examine seriously the basic assumptions of the government-run education system, we are unlikely to make any real progress. (For more from the author of “Idaho’s ‘Free Market’ Education Program Is Just Another Form of Government Control” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Wants to Unleash America’s Energy Potential. So Why Is He Keeping Aspects of Obama’s Destructive Agenda?

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump is taking steps to keep his campaign promise to create jobs and economic growth by reducing energy regulations, but his effort falls short of fully reversing former President Obama’s climate change agenda.

Trump recognizes that by removing the regulatory shackles on domestic energy development, processing and transport, the U.S. can unleash its vast natural energy resources and become an energy superpower yielding numerous economic benefits including job creation, boosted tax revenue, increased exports, and improved national security.

To reach that goal requires a stubborn determination to rip Obama’s climate change agenda out by its roots and build a pro-fossil fuel energy policy on a strong foundation.

Trimming the climate change edges will not give the business community the regulatory certainty it needs to bring about a U.S. energy renaissance.

Despite progress, lingering questions remain about Trump’s commitment to completely overturning Obama’s anti-fossil fuel policies.

For example, Trump has not canceled U.S. participation in the United Nations Paris Climate Change Agreement, a carbon tax trial balloon was floated at the White House, and the EPA is not reopening its 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding which drives climate change regulations.

Admittedly, unwinding former President Obama’s climate change regulatory agenda is no small task, and Trump has made meaningful strides through executive branch actions and the Congressional Review Act.

Giving the green light to the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Keystone XL Pipeline was important. The pipeline approvals allow a safer method of moving crude oil while providing construction and refinery jobs as well setting the stage for boosting energy exports.

Trump’s new Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth includes many beneficial policies that peel back key elements of the Obama climate change regime including changing EPA’s Clean Power Plan.

Despite these advances, Trump needs to take stronger steps for a pro-fossil economy including his promise to coal miners.

Trump’s recent executive order to rewrite the Clean Power Plan is not compelling enough for utilities — the companies that will determine the future of the coal industry.

As a Reuters story shows, the president’s Clean Power Plan effort does not give utilities the business certainty they need to invest in coal generated electricity.

According to its survey, Reuters found about sixty percent of utilities said coal power is not part of their long-term investment.

A spokesperson for North Dakota’s Basin Electric Power Cooperative said, “… the executive order takes a lot of pressure off the decisions we had to make in the near term, such as whether to retrofit and retire older coal plants.” He then added, “But Trump can be a one-termer, so the reprieve out there is short.”

Smart business leaders are not going to gamble on changing political winds or the legal outcome of expected lawsuits. With abundant natural gas supplies, utilities have the luxury of picking less politically risky power sources.

Adding to the business uncertainty is Trump’s hesitation to pull out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement. During the campaign, Trump promised he would “cancel” U.S. participation in the UN effort.

Trump’s indecision on the Paris Agreement is confusing and troubling. Without the Clean Power Plan, the U.S. can’t meet its emissions targets, making our continued participation deceiving and meaningless.

Taxing energy via a carbon tax sends the wrong signal to energy companies, and it preferentially harms coal since it emits twice the amount of carbon dioxide than natural gas.

Conservative critics are also questioning Trump’s commitment to reverse Obama’s climate change agenda because the EPA is not looking to change the agency’s 2009 endangerment finding.

The EPA’s endangerment finding is the rule that established greenhouse gasses including carbon dioxide pose a danger to human health and it serves as the foundation for climate change regulations.

Tackling the endangerment finding will unleash the climate change mob including companies that bet big bucks on energy regulations, but it would allow a full vetting of the new climate change science.

Reversing the EPA endangerment finding would provide the long-term certainty businesses need.

As a builder, Trump knows the importance of a solid foundation. In the political context, that means his energy policy must withstand the winds of progressive attacks now and in the future.

For Trump to achieve his energy vision for the U.S., he must show the business community and the world he is serious about reversing Obama’s entire climate change agenda. (For more from the author of “Trump Wants to Unleash America’s Energy Potential. So Why Is He Keeping Aspects of Obama’s Destructive Agenda?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

3 Reasons Democrats Just Made a Dumb Mistake

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Now that the judicial filibuster in the U.S. Senate has been nuked, it’s time to look at the political fallout going forward. And for Democrats, the news is all bad. Here are three reasons why Democrats just made a dumb mistake by filibustering Neil Gorsuch.

1. The GOP is now free to put real Scalia-Thomas types throughout the judiciary

The argument for years as to why Republicans needed stealth Supreme Court candidates like David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, and John Roberts (who have all gone on to be disappointments to varying degrees) was the filibuster.

However, now that it’s no longer necessary to get 60 votes for confirmation, there’s no need to appoint another Gorsuch-type whose record on Roe v. Wade is a gaping void. Nor is there anymore need to “play the game” during confirmation hearings, either, by having the “conservative” appointee approvingly repeat progressive talking points back to Democrats in an effort to gain their support.

Since it only requires a simple majority now, the GOP can freely confirm real heirs to Antonin Scalia. Where this could be a real benefit is throughout the federal circuit and district courts, which need an overhaul after decades of stockpiling progressives.

2. Let’s face it: Republicans were never gonna have the stones to partisan filibuster Democrat judicial nominees anyway

There’s literally no tradeoff here for Democrats, because we all know Republicans weren’t gonna have the stones to partisan filibuster in the future anyway. The GOP is the party that actually nominates for president the people who support — and vote for — the Democrats’ most progressive judicial nominees after all (see John McCain).

So this isn’t a case of “what goes around comes around” that benefits Democrats in the future; this is being too smart by half, and negotiating against yourself. In other words, this is a case of Democrats tactically acting like Republicans for once. They needlessly cornered the GOP into a position that forced them to actually draw a line in the sand, which isn’t exactly the GOP’s thing. (They ain’t called the “surrender caucus” for nothing.)

By doing so, Democrats helped set a precedent that will only benefit Republicans from here. For they gave Republicans leverage they never would’ve asserted on their own, while at the same time Democrats gave away leverage they’ve had all along.

3. This literally did nothing to elevate any Democrats politically

Even if you think the “Stand with Rand” and “Make DC Listen” filibusters by Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, respectively, were publicity stunts doomed to fail, at the very least both of those events inspired the GOP grassroots and elevated the national profiles of two of the party’s emerging stars.

Unfortunately for Democrats, the Gorsuch filibuster didn’t even do that. For example, the lackluster attempt by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., at filibustering this week didn’t generate nearly the attention Paul and Cruz’s did, even from a more-than-sympathetic media.

At the very least, if you’re going to contrive political theater, have someone who excites your base and could be your future standard-bearer as the face of it. Instead, Democrats came out of a fake fight without any real stars to rally behind. A missed opportunity, especially with the country already seeming to start to tire of President Trump.

In short, the Democrats’ Gorsuch filibuster accomplished more for Republicans than it did for Democrats, because it accomplished nothing for the latter. If this is what the “resistance” looks like, it’s going to have to try a lot harder. (For more from the author of “3 Reasons Democrats Just Made a Dumb Mistake” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Free Trade and Economic Freedom Help the Poor

/0 Comments/in , /by

Today, many people argue that trade disproportionately hurts poor Americans.

They say free trade creates a wage gap between low- and high-income earners, and constructs barriers that make it increasingly difficult for the less fortunate to climb the economic ladder.

But recent data from The Heritage Foundation shows that this simply is not true.

The Heritage Foundation’s 2017 Index of Economic Freedom shows that removing tariffs and other trade barriers leads to a number of tremendous benefits.

The creation of freer trading conditions establishes a mutually beneficial relationship between both parties—people voluntarily trade with each other only if it is in their own interest.

As a result, those who have greater opportunity to participate in the global exchange of goods and services find themselves with increased prosperity and diminished poverty.

According to the Pew Research Center, from 2001 to 2011, the number of “poor” individuals—those living on less than $2 a day—decreased by 14 percent globally.

During the same period, world trade (as a percentage of gross domestic product) increased by over 9 percent, from 51.5 percent up to 60.7 percent.

This strong correlation between trade freedom and reductions in poverty seems to refute the narrative we often hear. Rather than hurting the poor, the removal of international trade barriers allows millions of impoverished people to escape poverty.

A recent report from the World Bank Group gives further support to this correlation. Based on the most recent estimates, while 35 percent of the world’s population lived on less than $1.90 a day in the year 1990, that percentage had dropped to 12.4 percent in 2012.

The percentage dropped even further in the year 2013 to 10.7 percent.

For a practical example of how trade barriers hurt the American poor, consider U.S. import restraints on food and clothing.

These inflict substantial financial burdens on the poor because they drive up the price of these goods, which make up a larger proportion of poor people’s incomes than of wealthy people’s incomes.

The Heritage Foundation’s Patrick Tyrrell and Daren Bakst show the effects of these restraints in their recent special report: Americans paid a 20 percent import tariff on some dairy products in 2016, a whopping 132 percent import tariff on certain peanut products, and up to a 35 percent import tariff on canned tuna.

Reducing or getting rid of tariffs will clearly reduce these prices for consumers, and will relieve a disproportionate amount of pressure from the poor.

But the benefits of economic freedom extend well beyond aiding the poor. The data show a strong correlation between economic freedom and other positive outcomes.

As James M. Roberts and Ryan Olson of The Heritage Foundation report, countries with higher levels of economic freedom have citizens who enjoy a longer life expectancy, take better care of the environment, and spend more time in school—an important factor for poverty reduction.

On trade and economic freedom, the data speak loud and clear. In order to further reduce global poverty, governments should promote economic freedom and allow their citizens to participate in and enjoy the benefits of free trade. (For more from the author of “How Free Trade and Economic Freedom Help the Poor” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

I’m an Old Soldier. Now My Son Might Deploy to Syria, and I’m Worried

/0 Comments/in , /by

I was an infantryman. My brother was an infantryman. My father was an infantryman. My grandfather was an infantryman in both World War II and the Korean War. And so on, up through my family tree. I’ve been a soldier in a family of soldiers that has served this country in most of the wars it has fought since its founding.

This week my son deploys to the Middle East. And Donald Trump appears to be changing before our eyes into something none of us voted for. Before long my son could be on the ground in Syria, part of a new American campaign that’s no more likely to produce any good than anything else we’ve done in that troubled part of the world.

Beyond scaring me down on my knees, these facts have forced me to think about America’s legacy in the region. Things are not always as they seem. Remember all the warnings we heard about how Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction? About its ties to the attacks on 9/11? Remember Colin Powell at the United Nations, putting all his credibility, and America’s, on the line, to urge the world to join us? It was based on bad intelligence. Dust in our eyes. Dust in the wind.

The real question now is not whether Assad is a bad guy. Of course he is. But look at the real alternatives. They’re all much worse for religious minorities in the area, including Christians.

Our Broken Promises in Iraq

More important than bad intel from past conflicts, remember the promises we made to Iraq and its people. We swore that we would bring freedom, order, and prosperity. Do we even remember that now?

Iraqis do. With bitterness.

In January I traveled to Iraq and Kurdistan, researching a film I’m making. Its heroes? The one million Christians who were purged from their ancient homeland, right under our soldier’s noses. (Our men were following orders, and the Bush administration never ordered them to prevent it.) I’m documenting these and other religious refugees as they fight for their faith and their families. As they cling to their human dignity in the wasteland we left behind.

As I made my way toward Mosul, I passed through the legacy of our last “humanitarian” intervention. Our last war against a war criminal. Our proud patriots’ achievement stretched out before me as I snaked down the dusty roads: one abandoned settlement after another. Some places with noble and ancient names were now neatly organized piles of rubble.

Here’s what the locals told me: After the U.S. invaded, dissolved their army, fitfully tried to keep order, then finally — under Obama — cut and ran, those towns were captured by ISIS. The men and boys were hunted, the girls kidnapped and raped. The survivors hid out in the hills. Then U.S. airstrikes flattened all the buildings. Then ISIS booby-trapped the rubble and burned whatever was left. And that’s what is left of much of Iraq.

America’s Elite Plays on Our Goodness, But What Results is Evil

While I was still in Kurdistan I finally got overwhelmed. I met with local imams, whose people had suffered alongside the Christians. As The Stream has reported, those groups now fight together against ISIS. They also fight al Qaeda, and its Turkish sponsors and allies. After I heard their stories, I blurted out an apology. “I’m sorry. Americans are sorry that we invaded then abandoned you.”

The imam nodded solemnly, and addressed me with great dignity. “We know that Americans think they are responsible for the actions of their government. We are not so naive. Americans are good people. Your elite must play on your goodness even to do evil.”

A Long Series of Half-Truths & War Propaganda

As responsible citizens, it’s our duty to listen skeptically when men with power call us to war. We owe at least that much to the victims of past mistakes. It has become standard practice in American war-making to take some atrocity, inflate it or invent it and use it to sell a war to the general public. The spurious “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” sold us the whole Vietnam War.

We were sold the first Gulf War in part by the fiction that Iraqi soldiers were yanking premature babies out of incubators in Kuwait. (The “witness” who spoke before Congress was a relative of Kuwait’s ambassador, coached by a PR firm.) There were good reasons for liberating Kuwait. So why did our leaders decide to lie to us? Do they think we can’t be trusted with the truth?

In the three months since I’ve returned to our peaceful shores, I’ve been haunted by what I saw. By the fathers who choked up as they told me what happened to their daughters. By the pastors who were still picking through the ruins of ancient churches. By the ruin left behind by irresponsible politicians. Now I wonder whether my son will risk his life to pile up rubble in yet another country. (For more from the author of “I’m an Old Soldier. Now My Son Might Deploy to Syria, and I’m Worried” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

God Loves You. No Exceptions. On His Terms.

/0 Comments/in , /by

The other day I saw a banner hanging on a church that read, “God loves you. No exceptions. The Episcopal Church welcomes you.”

It’s disturbing to see the truth used to deceive.

For, while the message is true as far as it goes, there’s another message hidden in that “welcome.” The Episcopal Church has taken a strong stand in favor of homosexuality. Episcopals in the U.S. have ordained a non-celibate gay bishop, in defiance of the worldwide Anglican communion the church is a member of. In 2012, they authorized a “rite of blessing for same-gender relationships,” and three years later they “made the rite of marriage available to all people, regardless of gender.” The Episcopal Church is all in for same-sex marriage.

Half-truths make the most successful deceits. This banner says something more between the lines more than it should say; it also leaves out something that belongs there. There’s more to following Christ than the Episcopal Church lets on. All are welcome, but on His terms, not ours.

Welcome to Follow, on His Terms

Jesus Christ always set the conditions for following Him. The gospels give us example upon example. Two people came and said they wanted to follow Him. Jesus answered (in effect), “Here’s how: don’t delay, come now, and don’t expect it to be easy.” (Matt. 8:18-22)

Another young man asked how to receive eternal life, and Jesus told him to sell all he had, give to the poor, and then follow Him. (Mark 10:17-22)

After Jesus fed the 5,000, many of them followed him until He brought up some hard things in His teachings. People started drifting away; He responded by teaching harder things. Even more left Him then. Finally He asked the Twelve if they would leave, too. Peter answered, “To whom shall we go? You alone have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:60-69). All were welcome, but they had to accept His teaching.

Coming Into the Church, on His Terms

This, by the way, is the same Peter who had seen Jesus perform a great miracle and responded, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man!” Jesus called him to follow anyway, along with the rest of the Twelve. (Luke 5:1-11). As always, though, it was on His terms: “Follow me,” He said, “and I will make you fishers of men.” (Matt. 4:14-19). It was His call, His initiative, His plan: His terms.

So yes, Jesus welcomed everyone. But He was firm about the conditions. He pointedly excluded people who wanted to set their own terms. Following our Lord’s example, the Apostle Paul even told one church to exclude a man on account of his unrepentant life of sexual sin. (1 Cor. 5:1-8)

God loves you. No exceptions. All are welcome — on His terms.

His Terms are Loving

Leaders of the Episcopal Church have that decided God’s terms are too narrow. They forget what Jesus did in His Sermon on the Mount: He tightened the standards, up to and including, “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt. 5:21-48). Almost everyone admires that statement as the high moral teaching it is; few think it was unloving on His part. To loosen His standards is to turn away from His perfect goodness.

Does this seem harsh? Only if we deny that our Creator has the wisdom to love us in a way that fits how He designed us.

Jesus also said,

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matt. 11:28-30)

In context of His whole teaching, though, it’s clear that He wasn’t lowering the standard of righteousness. He was promising to carry it for us instead.

His standard is good. It’s neither harsh nor unloving, even for LGBT people. Same-sex attraction is not the “gay” experience gays want us to think it is — or even, I’m convinced, as they want to convince themselves it is. Jesus wants to help carry LGBT persons’ pain, but He doesn’t do it by saying, “Whatever you want to do is fine with Me.” He does it the same way He does for all of us in our own sufferings and failures: by giving us grace and forgiveness as we turn away from our sin to look toward Him instead.

Jesus wants to lift us above our pains, losses and sin — into the true life of loving fellowship with Himself. Churches that tell LGBT people there’s no need to confess or repent actually do them harm by cutting them off from that light yoke of His.

God doesn’t exclude LGBT people. He only says to them, as He does to all, “You are welcome to come — on My terms.” His body, the Church, is subject to those same conditions. We are in no position to change God’s terms for Him. (For more from the author of “God Loves You. No Exceptions. On His Terms.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

March for Science Descending Into Farce

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last thing the March for Science needs, say some agitated folks, is Bill Nye the “Science Guy” co-leading the parade. Why?

Their complaint is not that he’s an error–prone non-scientist, though that’s true. See, Nye is white. And a man. And some organizers are concerned that onlookers will notice Nye is white, and a man, and project his male-whiteness onto science itself. That in turn will cause the gullible to figure science is mostly done by white men.

Which, historically and in many current fields, it was and is. Now this fact may be for good or for bad, but it is a fact. And it’s not likely those who say they are “for” science and reason would be pleased were the contributions from white men removed from science. So long, calculus!

Or maybe they would be. Because it seems organizers believe scientific results are less important than who is producing them. Diversity trumps science.

Proof? Buzzfeed reports that, so far, the March for Science has already gone through “four diversity statements.” So the Twitter account @ScienceMarchDC tweeted (and later deleted) “colonization, racism, immigration, native rights, sexism, ableism, queer-, trans-, intersex-phobia, & econ justice are scientific issues.” The tweet also pictured a black power fist and rainbow flag icons.

Of course, science per se is silent on all these matters. But that’s because natural science alone is mute on every moral and ethical question put to it. Including the question whether to deign to include a white man holding a science baton.

“I love Bill Nye,” said Stephani Page, a biophysicist at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, who created the Twitter hashtag #BlackAndSTEM. Page was asked to join the march’s board in February after she tweeted criticism of its approach to diversity. “But I do feel comfortable saying to you what I said to the steering committee: He is a white male, and in that way he does represent the status quo of science, of what it is to be a scientist.”

And being a scientist is not about race and sex. It’s about intelligence, talent, interest, drive, money, and luck. Much the same as what success in most fields require.

The March organizers say nothing about this. They want us to know what they really stand for (emphasis original):

Inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility are integral to this mission and to our overall goals and principles. People have rightly pointed out that some of our own public communications, including social media posts, have not affirmed this stance. …We are actively partnering with and seeking advice from organizations and individuals with expertise in this area. We cannot ignore issues of racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination in the discussion and implementation of science. Nor can we ignore the ways in which science has been misused to harm marginalized communities. The lack of inclusivity and diversity in STEM thwarts scientific advancements not only by limiting who conducts the research, but also by influencing what topics are studied, who participates in the research, and who will benefit from or be harmed by it.

Sound like left wing politics to you, and not science? That was the effect they were going for. Organizers insist, “It was a mistake to ever imply that the March for Science is apolitical — while this march is explicitly non-partisan, it is political” (the original statement was in bold type).

Yet the positions taken by the politicians, activists, and many others involved in the March are rankly partisan. They insist on diversity. That means rigorous, mandatory and monitored balance between people from favored groups. This is not a scientific concept. It is pure politics. And anti-scientific politics, at that.

We observe that men and women have about the same averages on intelligence tests. But more men than women have extreme scores (both low and high). That’s one reason why there are far more men than women in the club of elite research mathematicians. There is also the matter of choice. Far more men than women choose to do theoretical physics.

Marchers call this a “disparity.” The rest of us call it a banal consequence of nature and freedom. Yet marchers insist on the theory of equality, which says that men and women must all be innately equal in all abilities, and must be equally represented in every field.

The march organizers are adamant, though, that theory rules over evidence. They tweeted, “For those wondering, #intersectionality is a core principle of #ScienceMarch, and we will soon be releasing our formal vision.”

Intersectionality is the theory that only trained academics and activists can spot “oppression” of favored political groups. Or it might be better said, as Andrew Sullivan did, that intersectionality is a religion and not just a theory. Except that that insults religion. It’s really a false religion. (For more from the author of “March for Science Descending Into Farce” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Presidency Could Be the Shortest in U.S. History

/0 Comments/in , , /by

President Trump seems to be adopting the standard Republican response to criticism from the left-wing media, that is, to act more like a Democrat.

That both justifies and fulfills the media agenda at the expense of the Trump agenda, at least what we thought it was.

That also explains the rise in influence of Jared Kushner, a Democrat, and his Goldman-Sachs globalist team at the expense of Stephen Bannon, a nationalist, whose views reflect those of the people who actually elected Trump.

The President should heed the admonition of English poet John Dryden, “Beware the fury of a patient man.”

That “patient man” is Trump’s base of support, which is now growing impatient. And without that base, the President has no support. None.

The Trump Presidency is at risk because he seems to be operating under a false assumption.

Forgive me for being blunt, Mr. President, but you were elected because of what you promised to do, not for who you are, but largely for who you claimed not to be.

You said it best yourself, Mr. President, in “The Art of the Deal” (1987):

You can’t con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.

A recent New York Times opinion article frames the current dilemma:

Stephen K. Bannon, the architect of Donald Trump’s campaign and presidency, is a man with a lot of ideas. He believes that Western civilization is locked in an existential battle with the barbarians at the gates, that nationalists must wrest control from the aloof and corrupt globalist elite, and that America is a once great nation shackled by welfare for both the poor and the wealthy…The first few months of President Trump’s term have been an attempt to put all of that theory into practice, and by any reasonable standard, that attempt has failed.

The ideas that carried you to your Presidency, Sir, did not fail – they were sabotaged. And now the agenda upon which your election was based, Mr. President, is withering through intentional neglect in order to replace it with one maintaining the corrupt and dysfunctional political status quo.

It should tell you something, Mr. President, that the same people who denounced and ridiculed you from the day you announced your candidacy, and still do, are now saying “Jared Kushner might save us after all.”

In that case, the “us” to be saved are the Democrats, the left-wing media and the swamp.

Saving them won’t save your Presidency, Sir, but will doom it because the people making such arguments are not those who elected you.

The downsizing of Stephen Bannon and the attacks on other “nationalist” advocates in your administration, Mr. President, are just some of the thousand cuts your enemies hope to inflict to bleed your Presidency white.

It is not a choice between family or friends or a competition between “Nepotism and Nationalism” and certainly not a matter of buttressing the Trump brand.

It is about the President keeping the promises he made to the American people and not diluted versions of them in order to placate those who had always preferred a Trump loss.

In the end, it is really about the survival of representative government.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Merits of Trump’s Syria Strike Aside, We Need to Bring Back Congress’ Power Over Declaring War

/0 Comments/in , /by

Amidst the chaos of any sudden use of military force, there are numerous opinions, observations, and pearls of wisdom offered regarding the action. These opinions often fall along non-ideological lines that we are not used to seeing on domestic policy issues. But considering the airstrike against Assad’s airfield last night, there is an opportunity for people on all sides to unite behind the general need for congressional authorization of force. We must move back towards the direction of getting congressional approval at least for protracted engagements that are war in all but name only.

Putting aside any debate over the air strike last night, going forward it is clear both from a political and legal standpoint that any calls for a more protracted engagement in Syria should be backed by a Declaration of War or an Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF). This is a policy that should be enthusiastically embraced by both proponents and opponents of a deeper engagement in Syria.

What the Constitution and the founders said about war powers

It is very clear that our founders, based on the reality of warfare defined in their time, believed that any initiation of offensive action taken against another nation must be approved by Congress. As James Madison said, there must be “rigid adherence to the simple, the received, and the fundamental doctrine of the [C]onstitution, that the power to declare war, including the power of judging of the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature; that the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war…”

George Washington, in a 1793 letter to the governor of South Carolina regarding conflict with the Creek Indians, made it clear that the question to initiate any major offensive war was out of the hands of the president: “The [C]onstitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.”

On the other hand, any decisions about the execution of the war thereafter or to immediately repel an invasion were placed squarely in the hands of the president. This arrangement was born out of the Article I Section 8 enumerated congressional power to declare war on the one hand, but the president’s role as commander-in-chief of the armed forces on the other.

This is also why Madison had the convention members alter the original draft of the Constitution, which gave Congress the power to “make war,” to a more limited language of “declare” war, making it clear that all operations beyond the initial declaration would not be subject to the chaotic whims of 100 people.

The question of how to square modern day war fighting, communications, transportation, and logistics of urgency and secrecy with Congress authorizing every use of force is a complicated one. One can make a strong argument that the definition of war has changed and that the need for urgent or clandestine action could be justified under Article II commander-in-chief powers. Clearly, this has guided every president since World War II and the fact that we have special operations ongoing in 140 countries. Without addressing one-time urgent surgical strikes, such as last night’s bombing or the broader use of special forces, it’s important that everyone agree we need to move away from the post-WWII trend of almost never getting authorization from Congress for anything, even protracted commitments that are tremendously costly and consequential.

Congressional buy-in is not just a Constitutional requirement, but a strategic one

Although there are many reasons one can posit why we have failed to win most wars post-WWII, it is no coincidence that our losing streak began when we stopped declaring war. A congressional debate over making such a grave commitment and an ensuing declaration of war is not just a constitutional imperative, it is a political and strategic one.

A declaration of war allows the entire representative body of the people to raise the important questions about our strategic interests, definition of the mission, feasibility, and cost of achieving that mission, and the exit strategy. If Congress votes to pass a resolution, it serves as a definitive guide for defining the enemy, how victory is achieved, and what success looks like. This further serves the purpose of rallying the country behind a defined mission because public support is always needed to achieve such victory. This is what we have been lacking in most engagements since WWII.

Based on the statement put out from the Trump administration, it is very possible that last night’s bombing was limited to deterring the proliferation of WMD and is not part of a broader engagement. But if the administration or Republicans in Congress believe we must further engage in the Syria civil war, a view I personally disagree with, even supporters of such action must agree to the imperative of congressional buy-in.

The same way some may argue that the requirement for a declaration of war for any offensive action by the president, in the modern era, necessarily abrogates his role as commander-in-chief, the continuation of endless protracted ground missions in the Middle East without any declaration from Congress completely overrides the unambiguous dictates of Article I powers. Moreover, it ensures that our troops remain in precarious situations indefinitely without any definitive mission or understanding of how to achieve victory. Thus, the opportunity for a congressional debate over authorizing force is good for both opponents and proponents of any given military engagement.

Yet, there is a dangerous notion being peddled by Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and John McCain,R-Ariz., that the AUMF passed by Congress in 2001 is somehow a retroactive catch-all for any engagement against any conventional or non-conventional adversary in the entire Middle East until the end of time. Such a worldview completely vitiates our Constitution and ensures that every new engagement in the Middle East will result in the same failed outcome to which we have grown accustomed. (For more from the author of “The Merits of Trump’s Syria Strike Aside, We Need to Bring Back Congress’ Power Over Declaring War” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Gorsuch Is in and the Senate Is More Nuclear. Where Do Conservatives Go From Here?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Neil Gorsuch became the 113th justice of the United States Supreme Court Friday afternoon, following a Republican circumvention of a filibuster with a long-anticipated “nuclear vote” majority.

While the fulfillment of this particular Trump campaign promise is cause for modest celebration for constitutionalists, those who promoted Gorsuch’s nomination need to remain clear-eyed about what this victory really means for our ongoing constitutional crisis.

Now that the dust has settled in the upper chamber, we’re left with a few things: a fulfilled promise from the Trump campaign, the end of the Supreme Court filibuster for the foreseeable future, and at least a nominal return to the balance of the Supreme Court before Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing last year.

It’s hard to imagine how this nuclear-option change doesn’t set the stage for the upper chamber to nuke the legislative filibuster in following suit, thus reaching the natural end of what the progressive populists sought to achieve with the 17th Amendment.

As Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin pointed out on his radio program this week, the roots of this move are over 100 years old and lie at the feet of the Progressive movement. In short, progressives cast the first stones, both on changing the nature of the Senate and politicizing the process (See: Robert Bork, 2013 et al.).

Ironically, what we have seen this week is the natural conclusion of two progressivist forces that simultaneously – if seemingly contradictorily – seek the end of centralization through the means of mob rule. Long story short, when your judiciary and contemplative body — with authority over approving its members — have been so politicized by judicial activism, a hyper-partisan outcome to the system was inevitable.

The nature of Gorsuch’s confirmation has made it painfully clear that there is no longer the prospect of lukewarm talent on the bench. Now the impetus remains on Republicans to go all out and take the Obama strategy of stacking the court with Trump appointees in the lower courts – albeit encumbered by the “blue slip” process . (And remembering all the while that this political football will change hands, leaving Democrats to do the same once again in the future.)

But, nuclear or not, Justice Scalia’s seat has been filled with an originalist and all is right again with the world, right? No. Rather, conservatives ought to keep in mind that this appointment — while a big fulfilled promise to a greatly concerned constituency — will not solve the judicial crisis facing our Constitution and our republic.

At best, the court now stands at the same ideological balance that gave us the Obergefell decision. At worst, we’re a few degrees further away from original intent than we were on Justice Scalia’s last night on this Earth. Either way, hanging all of one’s hopes for the republic, the rights of the unborn, or a list of other issues before the court solely on Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation and then walking away is a fool’s gambit.

Certainly, should Anthony Kennedy step down and offer up a way to halt the pivot on the court’s “swing vote,” or should anyone else on the progressivist side of the bench leave, then it will be incredibly easier to confirm an even more originalist jurist to fill the spot, as Josh Hammer points out at The Daily Wire.

Neil Gorsuch may in fact be “the kind of jurist we need,” as Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said before the committee, but there’s ground for healthy skepticism on this front. Daniel Horowitz explains that while Gorsuch is indeed a constitutionalist in a broad sense, and his articulation of the philosophy was both succinct and clear, his history of jurisprudence skews closer to that of an Alito than a Scalia. (And definitely short of a Thomas on the originalism scale.) Only time will tell.

But hope is not a course of action, especially when one branch of our government has so thoroughly co-opted the duties of the other two, as Daniel Horowitz points out in his book “Stolen Sovereignty.” Rather, the problems that so many have sought to fix by finding “better judges” are systemic, and the best answers to them are systemic as well.

The situation we see before us is two-pronged, as is the answer. If we want to see the Senate return to being the Senate again, then it needs to return to its original function prior to the 17th Amendment, while enacting reforms to make the courts themselves less political by nature.

But more important is the need for Congress to depoliticize the process of judicial appointments by depoliticizing the federal courts. Per Article III, the legislative branch has the power to completely reform the black-robed branch of government — as Horowitz and I have written about ad nauseam. And if the Senate’s nuclear outcome doesn’t spur that discussion on both sides of the aisle, perhaps the further politicization of the judicial branch will. Until then, we can only anticipate a more partisan Supreme Court and a more radioactive Senate. (For more from the author of “Gorsuch Is in and the Senate Is More Nuclear. Where Do Conservatives Go From Here?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.