FINALLY! Sen. Rand Paul Offers Worthy Obamacare Alternative GOP Can Get Behind

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. (A, 92%) has been nothing if not vocal about his belief that a new set of health care reforms should be voted on at the same time as a repeal of Obamacare. This week, Sen. Paul has revealed his proposal to replace Obamacare, by introducing S. 222, the Obamacare Replacement Act.

His bill is obviously designed to work in tandem with the partial repeal that was passed by Congress last year, in that it sweeps away the parts of Obamacare that the other bill leaves behind, particularly the regulations. While the bill being passed via the budget reconciliation process repeals only the taxation and spending portions of Obamacare, if Paul’s plan were advanced at the same time, the two bills would add to up to a fairly complete repeal of Obama’s health care takeover.

More so than other GOP proposals for life after Obamacare, Paul’s plan focuses much of its effort on removing barriers to competition in the health insurance market that existed well before 2010. First and foremost, it puts individuals on an equal footing with employers with respect to tax treatment for health insurance costs. He does this by allowing the full tax deductibility of health insurance premiums. He allows the deductions to apply not only to income taxes, but also to payroll taxes, meaning that even lower-income individuals benefit.

In addition, a tax credit of up to $5,000 per individual is allowed for contributions to a health savings account. This allows employers to make the choice whether to continue directly purchasing insurance to offer to employees or simply to contribute an equivalent sum to an employee’s health savings account.

HSAs are then greatly expanded to allow individuals to use their funds for many products and services that are currently not allowed, including health insurance itself as well as over-the-counter medications, physical fitness programs, and nutritional supplements.

Another major drawback of the individual insurance market has been that larger companies are able purchase health insurance in bulk and thus reduce the cost per plan. Paul’s plan creates the framework for individuals and small businesses to be able to easily band together into a larger purchasing pool. While Obamacare attempted to do this for small businesses with its SHOP program, the law increased premiums and regulated the market so much across the board that it hasn’t worked well. This new framework leaves wide open space for innovation in health insurance pools.

One consistent talking point for health care reformers on the Right has been allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines. Specifics of how to accomplish in a way that doesn’t violate federalism have generally been in short supply, but Paul’s plan appears to do a pretty good job of squaring that circle. It allows insurers from one state to offer their products in other states while acknowledging certain constraints imposed by secondary states.

Allowing cross-state sales further boosts insurance pools by increasing the ability to pool together by trade or organizational ties, rather than just by geography. Unions and other professional associations have had some ability to do this through association health plans for years, but Paul’s plan greatly loosens the restrictions on these plans.

Of all the new problems created by Obamacare, the Medicaid expansion is the most difficult to deal with politically. Although Medicaid generally provides poor quality coverage and Medicaid enrollees are rejected by a huge (and increasing) percentage of physicians, millions of Americans have now been brought into the program via Obamacare. Paul’s plan addresses the Medicaid issue in a way that would benefit both states and the covered individuals regardless of whether or not the expansion is fully repealed in the accompanying reconciliation bill.

He does this by granting states the ability to change how they deliver coverage under Medicaid. Previously, states have had to request a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services to get permission to experiment with better ways to administer their Medicaid programs. Paul’s bill eliminates the need to request the waivers, allowing states to follow in the steps of states like Florida, where reforms carried out under waivers have been very successful in improving the quality of care that Medicaid provides.

Overall, Sen. Paul’s plan focuses reform where it ought to be — breaking down barriers in the marketplace and allowing innovation and competition to increase access to affordable health care. From a free market perspective, it stands head and shoulders above any other plan yet offered to reform health care in the wake of Obamacare’s repeal. (For more from the author of “FINALLY! Sen. Rand Paul Offers Worthy Obamacare Alternative GOP Can Get Behind” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What You’re Not Hearing about the Mini Police States in Public Schools

/4 Comments/in , , /by

School has changed a lot over the last few decades. Once a place of learning, run by teachers and principals, where children were free to play outside during recess and walk home unescorted, public schools now increasingly resemble little prisons. Metal detectors guard the entrances, supervision never relaxes, and armed policemen are a regular presence. In many cases, these intimidating figures are taking the place of the disciplinary roles traditionally fulfilled by parents and teachers.

Reason Magazine reports the now common practice of using police to enforce standards of behavior in schools. Instead of verbal chiding, being made to sit in a corner, or other forms of discipline, children are now more likely to be subject to expulsion or even arrest for petty offenses that would have once merited no more than a stern talking to.

The article includes stories of police handcuffing a student for grabbing his milk allotment out of turn and charging a 17-year-old involved in a consensual relationship with a classmate with sexual assault and child pornography charges that could land him in prison for 40 years. While these cases are no doubt outliers, they indicate a larger institutional problem of inappropriate police intervention in schools.

There are several reasons for this. Part of the problem is the restrictive state laws that govern what teachers can and cannot do or say to students. Fear of litigious parents means that many teachers will do anything they can to avoid actual disciplinary measures, and the police provide a convenient form of outsourcing.

Another issue is the fact that children are crammed together in an increasingly high-pressure education environment based on zip code, with few options for those who are unable to keep up with the lessons or who simply feel out of place among classmates who are not really their peers. A lack of choice, of feeling trapped, leads to acting out and bad behavior, which teachers feel unable to control. Part of the problem is certainly also the parents who wish to use school as a substitute for actually raising their kids and teaching them how to behave.

But perhaps the biggest reason why police have invaded schools is fear. Today, schools are regarded as mass shootings waiting to happen. Numerous high profile incidents of school violence have instilled terror into the population, so much so that they are willing to take any measures, including criminalizing much harmless behavior, to feel a little bit safer. But what no one seems to have realized is that, if schools are so dangerous to begin with, it’s madness to force children to spend so much of their young lives confined within their walls.

Compulsory education laws, combined with a lack of school choice, make children prisoners in a place where, we are told, they are about as likely to take a bullet in the head as learn algebra. Why would we inflict that on people? Surely it violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

If schools are violent, let’s get kids out of them, instead of surrounding them with law enforcement authorities trained to arrest and imprison, rather than aid and educate. This is not to mention the fact that police resources could be much better spent elsewhere, rather than having highly trained officers waste time persecuting children over cafeteria line etiquette or arresting teenagers in love.

Why should parents be forced to subject their children to such treatment? Why should kids whose only purpose at that stage of life is to learn and have fun be intimidated and threatened with criminal charges? Anyone should be able to opt out of such a system, or at the very least, transfer to school with less draconian methods of enforcement.

Anyone who has spent time around children can observe their wonder at life, the joy they feel at learning about the world around them, the hope and promise of life stretching out before them. It’s heartbreaking to me to see all that enthusiasm snuffed out as they are told, “Watch your step, or you’ll end up in a cold, grey cell.” There will be time to be beaten down by the power of the state later in life. Can’t we permit them just a few years of exploration and enjoyment before placing a boot on their small necks?

If schools are going to be nothing more than little prisons, complete with armed guards, I say, set the children free. (For more from the author of “What You’re Not Hearing about the Mini Police States in Public Schools” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Change We Can Believe In: Trump’s Executive Orders for American Sovereignty Are Game-Changers

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It’s Christmas come early for conservatives. Actually, for all Americans who care about homeland security.

Today represents a turning point in which President Donald Trump has used Obama’s pen and phone for the first game-changing series of executive actions.

The core job of the federal government is not to get involved in health insurance or “stimulate” the economy. The most important job is to protect our national sovereignty and the security of all the states. That begins with border security and crafting an immigration policy that puts American interests first. While some of our statutes need updating, many of the existing immigration laws are actually written properly, albeit have been ignored by Obama and past presidents. This is where Trump’s executive actions come into place.

The immigration laws were written as such that they gave the president broad latitude to clamp down on immigration and ratchet up enforcement, but not to loosen immigration and open up the borders. And rightfully so. A nation must retain the ability to shut down immigration swiftly in order to protect American sovereignty and security. On the other hand, any expansion must be done judiciously with the full input of the American people as reflected through a robust debate in Congress. Some liberal critics might suggest that conservatives are being hypocritical by promoting robust executive action from Trump after criticizing Obama’s use of his executive pen for years. The difference is that Trump is actually following the statutes passed by Congress while Obama violated the letter and spirit of the laws.

Suspending refugee program and cutting off visas from dangerous countries

The insane nightmare of importing the entire Middle East is long over. At least for now.

Here are the details from a preliminary draft:

Trump plans to shut off the issuance of all new immigrant and non-immigrant visas for 30 days from the following six volatile countries: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. After 30 days, the secretary of state and secretary of homeland security must submit a report to completely revamp the vetting process going forward.

Countries will have to submit within 60 days any information that the administration determines necessary, pursuant to the findings of this report, in order to adjudicate a visa application and ensure they are properly vetted. Any country that fails to submit this information will not be able to send foreign nationals to our country. All the while, the ban can be extended and expanded at any time.

In addition, the entire refugee resettlement program is suspended for four months pending a complete investigation of the program and a plan to restructure it and prioritize those who are truly in danger because of religious persecution. After 120 days, the program may resume but only for those countries from which Secretaries Kelly and Tillerson determine do not pose a threat. The program from Syria is completely suspended until the president personally gives the green light.

Furthermore, the order suspends the Visa Waiver Interview Program, and therefore requires that anyone wishing to renew their non-immigrant visa first undergo an in-person interview with U.S. officials in the consulate of their home country.

This common sense order can’t come at a better time. Obama has brought in 46,500 refugees, not including other visa categories, from these six countries just since the beginning of 2016. Obama’s bureaucrats are still running the State Department (and unless Tillerson is pressured to clean them out, they will continue to do so), and have brought in almost 1,000 refugees since Inauguration Day alone!

While liberals will cry foul about taking such action from the White House, we must remind them that the Immigration and Nationality Act (§ 212(f)) gives the president plenary power to “by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants.” This power is universal, enforceable at the will of the president, and applies any time for any circumstance.

Border fence

Trump also announced that he is directing DHS to begin the process of constructing the border fence, a signature promise of his campaign. Although this endeavor will eventually need more appropriations, which will likely be forthcoming in April, Trump absolutely has the statutory authority to begin construction. Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 — as amended by the REAL ID Act of 2005, the Secure Fence Act of 2006, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 — requires DHS to construct “not less than 700 miles” of fencing along the border. The locations, nature of the fence, time-frame, and any length beyond 700 miles are left up to the discretion of the president. In addition, the DHS secretary may waive all legal requirements that impede any construction.

As CRS observes:

Indeed, nothing in current statute would appear to bar DHS from potentially installing hundreds of miles of additional fencing or other barriers along the border, at least so long as the action was determined appropriate to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry.

[You can read more here for why a border fence is a force multiplier that will actually stop 95% of border crossings and is amazingly cost effective.]

Restoring interior enforcement

As part of today’s executive orders, Trump announced that they would cut off law enforcement grants to sanctuary cities. As I’ve noted before, this is one of the few areas where states have no right to push back and cutting off funding is part of existing law.

Perhaps the most underappreciated aspect of the orders was the restoration of the Secure Communities Program. Obama unilaterally abolished it as part of the DAPA amnesty and the elimination of this program is responsible for the surge in criminal aliens. Secure Communities was one of the most effective law enforcement programs in the field. It facilitated coordination between local law enforcement to share information through the universal fingerprint database on illegal aliens held in their prisons.

There is no reason anyone here illegally in the first place should remain in the country if they are in prison for any reason. Overall, ICE detainers declined 73% from the peak in March 2011 before the first round of Obama amnesties was fully implemented. Restoring Secure Communities will go a long way in getting rid over well over a million criminal aliens, a goal that any intellectually honest liberal should share.

Work to be done: End Obama’s illegal DACA amnesty

Obviously, there is a limit to what a president can do in one day. Certainly the list of accomplishments from today are enough to register as a great start. However, there is one action Trump must take immediately: the repeal of Obama’s DACA amnesty.

As we noted earlier this week, the Trump administration is giving indications that they don’t plan to rescind DACA. The prevailing talking point is that they want to focus on criminal aliens and dangerous refugees. And to their credit, they have certainly gone a long way towards addressing those issues today. However, the issue with Obama’s amnesty is that 1) it’s patently unconstitutional and 2) it’s not merely an issue of deportation but one of providing illegal aliens with Social Security cards and refundable tax credits. Trump’s own DHS is now issuing hundreds of unconstitutional DACA papers every day. That can and must end now simply by shutting off the spigot. We don’t have to deal with the deportation issue now. And while we’re at it, let’s stop calling them “Dreamers” and focus on American Dreamers, to paraphrase Trump.

Overall, Trump has gone a long way in embarking on some of the most important immigration changes in decades, and has fulfilled many of the homeland security ideas on our checklist, something that should have happened after 9/11.

Today is a blueprint for how to move forward. We need to continue focusing on the issues that matter, always remaining relentlessly on offense promoting our affirmative ideas on multiple fronts to overwhelm the other side rather than reacting to the latest nonsense in the media. Conservatives should be proud that the pressure and culture of accountability they built throughout this election bore fruit in such spectacular fashion.

As for Trump, if he sticks to policy, eases off on Twitter, and picks up his pen, he will go a long way to truly making America great again. (For more from the author of “Change We Can Believe In: Trump’s Executive Orders for American Sovereignty Are Game-Changers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Stephanie’ Crowder Punks Wendy Davis at the Women’s March and It’s Absolutely Brilliant!

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Steven Crowder has outdone himself. In what could be his most controversial and hilarious video yet, the Louder with Crowder host infiltrated the national Women’s March held over the weekend … dressed in drag.

That’s right, Crowder and his producer NotGayJared went undercover as transgendered men. Or is it transgendered-women? Trans-women-men? These pronouns are confusing. What’s not confusing is the far-Left, radical agenda Crowder filmed march attendees espousing.

What is “p*ssy economics”?

Watch to find out:

Crowder even punked feminist-icon, leader of the pink revolution Wendy Davis, and got an exclusive interview with her. As she explained her ideas, it turns out the liberal Democratic policies advocated by Davis are all built on negative female stereotypes.

Hypocrisy much? (For more from the author of “‘Stephanie’ Crowder Punks Wendy Davis at the Women’s March and It’s Absolutely Brilliant!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Nasty Women Writing a Horrifying History of Our Times

/0 Comments/in , , /by

I remember an important lesson my parents began teaching me as a young lady. It’s a lesson that has been lost to the liberal tyranny of the crass, and the proof was the Women’s March in Washington D.C. last Saturday.

It’s a simple lesson on its face, but very significant, with far-reaching effects. It was this: As a woman, you teach a man how to treat you.

(That is not meant in any way to disparage men, or to imply that they are too dense to figure things out for themselves.)

What they wanted me to understand was that I had to decide what sort of woman I would be, and that my own behavior would largely determine how I was treated by men. Dad also wanted me to know that if any boorish man treated me badly, and I tolerated it, then I was teaching him it was okay to be a pig, and at that point, I was my own worst enemy.

The point is, by and large, men want to do right by women, so it’s incumbent upon the ladies to inspire them. Men aspire to honor and nobility, and most will respond accordingly when a woman encourages that behavior. I still believe men are inclined to take their cue from the ladies. Unfortunately, a man who is prone to lesser standards won’t need much encouragement at all to sink even further, and when women themselves behave badly, and tolerate bad behavior from a man, then mud begets mud and more mud.

The Crass Women’s March

That brings me to the gargantuan display of crassness that came out of the Women’s March. The profanity and vulgarity exhibited there was disgusting and embarrassing. We’ve all read about or heard Madonna’s foul-mouthed rant, and the same for Ashley Judd’s filthy speech praising nastiness among women as some new badge of honor.

If all that wasn’t enough, the signage carried by non-celebrity women was every bit as crude as what Madonna and Judd spewed from the podium. Grown women walked around dressed in vagina costumes. They wore hats sporting cat ears — a reference to the crass synonym for female genitalia. They carried signs that read, “P**** Grabs Back!” and “The Future is Nasty!” I saw one photo of a mother pushing her two little daughters in a stroller and pinned to the stroller was a sign reading, “Stay Nasty!” (Yes, I do understand the reference to Trump calling Hillary a nasty woman.)

I saw one woman holding a sign on which was painted the full female reproductive system with the slogan, “This Machine Kills Fascists!” What that could possibly mean, I can’t fathom.

The photo that tore my heart was one of a little girl about 3 years old holding onto a big sign in front of her that read, “F*** Your Fascist Bulls***”. Her mother was standing behind her smiling. What kind of woman does that to her daughter??

It seems clear that nasty is the new liberal “feminist” mantra. These women have responded to the degrading talk of a man they despise by being every bit as degrading, except it’s worse because they’re doing it to themselves. And they foolishly believe it makes them powerful or something. It doesn’t. It makes them gross and vulgar.

They’ve decided that nasty is a compliment, and they’re determined to prove just how nasty they can be. On that note, they sure succeeded. They’ve made it perfectly clear that as women, they are merely parts to be objectified. They — not Donald Trump — they have reduced women to nothing but their sexual parts. They have taught every man watching that their womanhood is not a thing of dignity or beauty, but something nasty that revolves entirely around sex. A woman is not a person to be taken as a whole and cherished and protected, but sexual pieces to be dehumanized and profaned.

Their example won’t be forgotten. Nasty women will inspire nasty treatment. Guys will feel free to refer to the female anatomy in crude “locker room” terms, cause hey! The women are doing it themselves!

We expect the men to be decent and honorable when the women are so indecent and vile? How does that work?

Their Killer Motive, The Unimaginable Consequences

Underscoring all the nastiness, of course, was the premier motive of the whole march: Abortion on Demand and Without Apology! We shall kill the“unwanted” if we jolly well want to, and don’t you dare try to take away our “rights!”

This is the tone liberal women in America have set. Genitals on display; crassness, vulgarity, and nastiness, loud and proud; and an absolute, irrevocable license to kill. These are the maxims of women who decry the intolerable offense of a man who once simply took them at their word. (They still love Bill Clinton and Roman Polanski though. Never mind their rapist, lecherous tendencies.)

To sum it up: Venerable Fulton Sheen was right when he told us: “To a great extent the level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood. When a man loves a woman, he has to become worthy of her. The higher her virtue, the more her character, the more devoted she is to truth, justice, goodness, the more a man has to aspire to be worthy of her. The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women.”

Ladies and gentlemen, the history being written by the profane conduct from the Women’s March is too horrifying to contemplate. I ask you: what are we going to do about it? (For more from the author of “Nasty Women Writing a Horrifying History of Our Times” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Just Kept 3 Major Campaign Promises. Here’s What You Need to Know.

/0 Comments/in , , /by

On day one of his first week in office, President Trump kept several campaign promises in a series of executive orders issued Monday.

The first executive order was the fulfillment of a long-standing campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement.

“Great thing for the American worker, what we just did,” Trump said as he signed the order at the Resolute desk in the Oval Office.

Secondly, President Trump instituted a federal hiring freeze on all federal workers, excluding the military. This policy was the second point in the president’s “Contract with the American Voter.”

Thirdly, the president reinstated the Mexico City abortion rule – a rule that requires foreign non-governmental organizations to not provide or promote abortion services if they receive funds from the U.S. government. The rule was put in place by President Ronald Reagan, and President Obama overturned it in his first week in office in 2009. Now that President Trump has undone what the Obama administration did, hundreds of millions of dollars used for international family planning funds will no longer go to organizations that promote abortions.

Hopefully, President Trump’s actions on federal hiring and on funding for abortion signal that his administration will be serious in his campaign’s commitment to reducing the size of government and to the pro-life cause.

Conservatives should be encouraged by today’s executive actions and look forward to ensuring the president fulfills the rest of his campaign promises. (For more from the author of “Trump Just Kept 3 Major Campaign Promises. Here’s What You Need to Know.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

I Was Trapped on a Train with Smug ‘Women’s March’ Feminists. This Is What I Overheard.

/0 Comments/in , , /by

After spending a busy inauguration week in D.C., I couldn’t have been more ready to board the train home to New York City. As I waited at Union Station, I felt the adrenaline leaving my system, and began to notice how completely drained I was.

The task that took the greatest toll on me, I realized, was covering the Women’s March on Washington Saturday. Beyond the normal fatigue that comes after writing, tweeting, and Facebook Live-ing for hours on end, the Women’s March left me feeling less satisfied and more desperate … and even angry.

After boarding I observed, to my dismay, that the train from D.C. to Penn Station was packed with Women’s March attendees — a horde of smug feminists, some still carrying signs and sporting their pink “pussy” hats. There was one exception: a college-age girl wearing a “Make America Gay Again” hat.

I tried to continue listening to music and scrolling through the news on my phone, but my attention kept straying to the conversations around me.

One teenage girl was reading an article aloud to her mother, sharing how “cute” and “awesome” it was that former Secretary of State John Kerry spent his “first day off” walking his dog through the Women’s March in D.C.

I overheard a man talking on the phone (rather loudly), giddily discussing all the speakers he saw at the march. He gushed over Gloria Steinem, who co-chaired the event. I tried not to giggle, recalling how the feminist icon bemoaned a male-dominated society in the speech she delivered Saturday:

“God may be in the details, but the goddess is in connections. We are at one with each other, we are looking at each other, not up. No more asking daddy.”

A middle-aged woman sitting across the aisle from me with her tween son sipped red wine while explaining to an older woman nearby how she had a “great time,” but regretted not being able to meet up with her “friends from Planned Parenthood.”

I witnessed others catching up on Instagram and Facebook posts, adding the occasional triumphant remark about “making history,” “speaking out,” “sending a message to Trump,” or “impeachment.”

“Oh my gosh,” I thought to myself. “These people really feel like they’ve turned the country on its head.”

After what felt like the longest three-and-a-half hours of my life, we had arrived. I exited the train and hopped on an elevator with four other women. An older woman, with short, spiked hair, turned around to ask everyone if we were coming from the march.

“YES!” two pink-hatted women responded immediately, beaming with satisfaction. I remained silent, but the woman who inquired gave us all a big thumbs-up.

My ride on the Mutual Affirmation Train was like attending the March on Washington all over again: Crowds of like-minded, mostly white urban women celebrating how “strong,” “educated,” and “virtuous” they all are. I felt like the undercover conservative, harboring secrets I was sure none of these individuals were interested in hearing.

In her speech Saturday, Gloria Steinem cited “violence against females in the world” as to why there are “fewer females than males” alive today. As the crowd roared, I thought to myself, “She had to have meant abortion, right? Does she hear what she’s saying? Do these protesters?” I’m certain that I was alone in my thinking.

I am just as offended by Trump’s derogatory “pussy” comment as anyone else. But an average bystander watching the Women’s March participants — reading their signs and t-shirts, seeing their costumes, and hearing their chants — would reasonably conclude that feminists aren’t offended by the profane; they’re utterly obsessed with it.

This weekend, I stepped into the alternative universe that is the Left’s reality. There, everyone agrees with everyone, and even when they lose, they win. Lack of self-reflection and critical thought is pervasive. It’s how I imagine an insane asylum feels.

Needless to say, I’m happy the march is over. I’ve never felt so keenly aware of how broken our culture is — with hundreds of thousands of militant women around the world boldly asserting their right to kill unborn children, threatening any man or women who dares to stand in their way. How confidently did they assume that no reasonable person would object to their noble cause. How wrong they were. (For more from the author of “I Was Trapped on a Train with Smug ‘Women’s March’ Feminists. This Is What I Overheard.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

4 Questions Trump MUST Ask His Potential SCOTUS Nominees

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Since the election, the country has been waiting with bated breath at who President-elect Donald Trump will nominate to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s vacant Supreme Court seat.

Recent Marist polling found that 80 percent of Americans believe that appointing originalists to the highest bench in the land was either an “immediate” or “important” priority. Now, short lists are circulating and the Trump transition team is reportedly holding meetings with potential nominees.

While during the election it seemed that the only requirements to fill the seat was a two-box checklist (“Pro-life” and politically conservative), when an entire branch of government has gotten so far away from its original purpose, it requires a bit more than that.

Here’s what Trump’s team (and eventually the Senate) ought to be asking candidates:

1. What are rights, and what does the Constitution have to do with them?

One of the most visible consequences of the judicial oligarchy is a never-ending regime of ever-changing rights. Rather than being fundamental, transcendent, and bound up with our human dignity, “rights” are now construed to mean whatever the state wants them to mean.

Of course, one of the most egregious historic examples of this is Justice Anthony Kennedy’s infamous line that everyone has the “right to define the universe” as they see fit in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. But this sort of thinking has promulgated across the spectrum, from immigration to voting laws.

A solid justice would be quick to respond that rights cannot be created by Congress or willed into existence by an activist judge, but preexist any form of government and are best protected by the federal system envisioned in the Constitution.

2. What does the 14th Amendment really do?

The 14th Amendment was originally written with the intent of undoing the legal atrocities of chattel slavery. Since then, its provisions have been used as a blanket justification to codify a never-ending list of positive rights into the body of constitutional case law. This modern understanding of the amendment has not only been used to create “rights” to abortion and same-sex marriage, but has also been used by leftist judges to arbitrarily manufacture “rights” to early voting, transgender bathrooms, and a host of other issues.

This has, in turn, created a legal regime where the imaginary rights begin to devour the fundamental negative ones that are actually referenced in the Constitution – as has been the case of conscience rights under the Obama administration.

So where does it stop? Does the 14th Amendment give the judiciary license to create a never-ending catalogue of imaginary rights? Or is its scope far more limited?

3. Does the Supreme Court create “settled law”? Is it the final arbiter?

What the founders envisioned as the weakest branch of government has now become a place where political discourse goes to die. Antonin Scalia pointed out as much in the Obergefell decision months before his death. Is Obergefell v. Hodges truly “settled law”?

Is any watershed ruling? Or was the concept of judicial supremacy something contrived in the 20th century and since been used to pull issues out of public debate and put them squarely at the control of the legal profession?

A solid Supreme Court candidate would articulate that the founders never granted the court with anything close to the current power that it enjoys, and never intended for it to have the power to “settle” issues of public debate.

Candidates might also add that the founders explicitly rejected a judiciary council of review to do this. And as Daniel Horowitz has pointed out at CR, even the oft-cited Marbury v. Madison decision never granted the Supreme Court the final say on political questions. The court, along with Congress, the president, and the states each had their own responsibilities of interpretation.

4. What is the Supreme Court’s role?

This is an area ripe for review. If the court isn’t meant to act as a super legislature – as it has been doing for the past few decades – then what is it meant to do? The best answer for this would be to rule on issues of statute – along with its areas of original jurisdiction – while sharing the role of constitutional interpretation along with the other branches and the states.

However, the pithiest answer might be, “Whatever the Constitution and the Congress allow it to rule on, and nothing more.”

As pundits, politicians, and journalists over the next few weeks take to deriding and extolling various portions of judicial records for Trump’s short list, these questions will fall by the wayside in favor of media postmortems on how they’ll affect political questions from the bench.

As we have explained repeatedly here at Conservative Review, the problems facing our court system can’t be fixed by simply putting political conservatives (read: “good” judges) on the bench and hoping the problem rules itself away. Decades of Republican appointees have proven this. The kind of constitutional bona fides necessary to fill Scalia’s seat are going to have to be proven by the answers to the above questions.

These questions don’t nearly encompass the breadth of what should be asked of a worthy potential jurist the American people want to see Justice Scalia succeeded by someone who understands our constituting document as written, they ought to be first on the list. (For more from the author of “4 Questions Trump MUST Ask His Potential SCOTUS Nominees” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s One Thing Conservatives Must Cease and Desist Immediately

/0 Comments/in , , /by

As conservatives we are supposedly attempting to conserve things.

Things that are predetermined by nature and nature’s God — so they are, by definition, reality. Things that history has proven are what are best for the human condition this side of eternity. And the things that gave birth to American Exceptionalism.

When your ideology is based on such objectively defined criteria, there really shouldn’t be as much disagreement among us as there is. After all, shouldn’t the Left—with its self-centered emphasis—be the side constantly arguing among itself? Unfortunately, that all too often doesn’t seem to be the case. This column is about one of the main reasons that happens.

Our movement is so driven by what we’re against we have forgotten to conserve what we’re actually for. Even to the point of allowing our opponents to determine for us what/who is shrewd, noble, and virtuous for us to support and pursue. Now, why you’d ever want to trust the words of those who cry “racist” every time you dare to disagree with them is beyond me, but here we are.

I swear, if I hear someone allegedly smart on our side say one more time “since the Left hates it/him/her that must be good,” I’m gonna pull a Waiting for Guffman and go home and bite my pillow in a fit of frustration.

Permit me to share a recent example of this foolishness to drive my point home.

A month ago I conducted an interview here at CR with Andy Schlafly from Eagle Forum, based on his research into the judicial records of several judges known to be on Donald Trump’s short list once he becomes president. While I obviously think enough of Schlafly’s work on such an important subject to highlight it, and think it’s something conservatives should definitely consider, I also think there’s certainly room for conservatives to disagree with his assessment.

I’ve even read some on our side who disagree with Schlafly’s conclusions, and that’s healthy for our movement. Didn’t a best-selling book once say something about there being “wisdom in a multitude of counsel”?

So this week in response to my interview with Schlafly, a conservative activist with more than 10,000 Twitter followers contacted me on social media. He was incredulous that Schlafly would dare to deem some on Trump’s wish-list as not true conservatives in the Antonin Scalia mold. That’s fine, I love a good back-and-forth, but before I could respond to him he had sent me a follow-up tweet. This one included the source of his incredulity. Can you guess what it was?

Was it Ed Whelan at National Review, who is a Schlafly critic? No.

Was it the Federalist Society standing up for its own? No.

Was it anything all that analyzes such matters from a conservative viewpoint? No.

His source was none-other than the paid, leftist trolls at Think Progress. Because, of course, since they think these potential Trump judges are going to create internment camps for trannies they must be just grand.

Before you laugh, please realize this is how much of our movement thinks and/or communicates—including some very big names. Why? Some of it is intellectual laziness, sure, but most of it is the oldest motivation of them all.

It’s heavy lifting advocating for conservatism given the spirit of the age. Especially because just as there are lots of people who have never given their lives to Christ, but think they’re Christians because they went to an Easter service once and know a few of the Ten Commandments. There are also plenty in our movement who, because they hate the nanny state, believe they are conservatives when they don’t even know what we’re trying to conserve.

However, just because you’re against what we’re against doesn’t mean you’re for what we’re for.

Yet in this day and age it’s much easier to click-bait those who still nurse on intellectual milk and aren’t ready for such solid food. Low-hanging fruit such as easily-debunked conspiracy nitwitism and straw men arguments draw an audience and generate traffic. Like when Drudge fired his siren on Tuesday night after noted Trump shill Roger Stone claimed to Alex “what makes the friggin frogs gay” Jones he was poisoned by his political enemies.

Low information, it’s not just for the liberals anymore.

Let’s face it, too many people on our team are really just clock-punchers and check cashers. So when you’re selling something you don’t really believe in, you peddle infantile tripe such as “this makes (fill-in-the-blank liberal) really mad, so it must be good.” And you help train a generation of earnest activists hanging on your every word, like this one who contacted me on Twitter.

For the critical thinker would realize there are people on both sides who are simply compensated to gaslight and demagogue the other. That if Trump gave the Rainbow Jihad everything it wants, and even offered to undergo gender re-assignment surgery himself, the dutiful trolls at Think Progress would still call him a bigot. Because in their eyes Trump’s chief crime isn’t what he stands for, it’s that he’s a Republican.

Which is the same reason race-baiters like Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga. (F, 22%) boycott the inaugurations of George W. Bush and Trump, even though each man’s approaches and messaging as it pertains to minorities couldn’t be much different. For Lewis has himself transitioned from civil rights icon to Democrat Party hack, who has attempted to label every GOP standard-bearer in my lifetime a racist.

If Trump tried to appoint Obama’s pick Merrick Garland to replace Scalia, Garland would suddenly become “the most anti-reproductive choice judge ever” according to the likes of the George Soros funded Think Progress. This is the way this gaslighting game of demagoguery is played. I can’t believe I have to spell this out, but apparently I do.

We must cease and desist allowing phony outrage from the perpetually grieved fake victims on the Left determine who or what is conservatism. But that will be hard, because although reactionaryism isn’t conservatism, it sure pays well. (For more from the author of “Here’s One Thing Conservatives Must Cease and Desist Immediately” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Living under a President You Didn’t Want: Four Words of Encouragement for Liberals

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Liberal Americans, may I speak to you for a moment? I have some words of encouragement for you.

I know that today, Inauguration Day, is a rough day for you. Very rough. Actually from my perspective as a conservative it looks like you’re in a panic.

As I write this, you’re planning protests all around the country — “massive” ones, according to some reports. The ACLU is printing 10,000 leaflets on protestors’ rights, for use in Washington alone. At least one other legal group has laid plans to be ready to help you if you get arrested.

It’s going to be a long day for you. I’m sure you see it as the start of a long four years.

There are conservatives, too — #NeverTrumpers — who would prefer it if we were swearing in someone else as president today. But I haven’t seen any sign that they’re joining in with your protests. I’m sure that’s partly because they, like all conservatives, have practice in this already.

You see, we, too, know what it’s like to have a president we didn’t want.

When Barack Obama was inaugurated we expected things would be rough — just as you are expecting as Trump is inaugurated today. Undoubtedly you see his administration in a much better light than we do, but for us, this past eight years has been disastrous in matters including health care, energy policy, marriage, right to life, and a host of foreign policy matters.

But we made it through not just one but two inaugurations, plus eight years of Obama in charge, without the kind of panic many of you are displaying.

I know it’s risky to offer unsolicited advice, but I think our experience may be instructive to you. So let me offer you four words of encouragement if I may: four things you can do to make it through the Trump administration with patience, with grace, and especially without splitting apart the country more than it already has been.

Don’t Forget It’s a Democracy

President Obama reminded us eight years ago that “elections have consequences.” Conservatives would have to live with his leadership and his agenda, he said, because the country elected him president: “At the end of the day, I won.”

He won twice. Now someone else has won. Donald Trump will be our president, because elections have consequences.

Some of you love to proclaim, “Not my president!” Please understand how anti-democratic this appears from our point of view. Barack Obama was president for both liberals and conservatives. If we had denied that, we would have denied American democracy itself; for America’s historically revolutionary democratic processes are defined by our free elections and the country’s acceptance of their results.

So we accepted Barack Obama as our president.

Of course we knew we would get our chance again in four years, and again in another four. You, too, will get your chance in 2020.

In the meantime you should feel welcome to use every legitimate democratic means at your disposal to stand for your view of America. You can protest; that’s American democracy in action. It does no good, though, if it turns disruptive or violent, so please be on guard for that. In your panic you appear not more than frightened: you look angry and sometimes hateful, which in large crowds often turns dangerous. I know you don’t want that to happen, but you’re running quite a risk of it.

I think you might want to re-consider your use of protests anyway. You’ll get further in the long run by working with the rest of us than by shouting at us.

Take the Long View

We are swearing in our 45th president today. There will be a 46th, and it won’t be Donald Trump. Nothing lasts forever. Conservatives have kept that in mind over the last eight years. Our patience has yielded this day for us, the end of extreme progressive national leadership — for now. There will be a 46th president for us, too, and who knows who that will be?

Social movements take time, too. The Civil Rights movement began with the abolitionists before the Civil War. It’s advanced since then through a series of huge ups and downs. If this is a “down” moment — as I’m sure you think it is — it’s still part of the long advance.

That might be little comfort if you want change right now! But change can’t be hurried. Eight years under Obama didn’t bring you the change you wanted. It isn’t because he wasn’t on your side. It’s because no matter how fast you might want change to happen, some things can’t be rushed.

While you’re taking that longer view, I suggest you also take a broader one. You don’t know conservative America. Of course we don’t agree with all your policies and politics, but we aren’t as hateful as you think we are. You might want to get to know us as we are, rather than the way your fellow liberals and progressives describe us. To judge us simply by the label “conservative” without knowing us is to stereotype us, and I’m sure you don’t believe in stereotyping.

Trust God

onald Trump may be president, but he’s not the one who’s ultimately in charge. God is. And God is good. The Bible assures us that God takes a longer view and for higher purposes than we could even begin to comprehend.

Not every conservative lives by that belief, but it’s fair to say there are enough of us to influence the overall mood on our side of the American public. Sure, we’ve cringed over many of Obama’s decisions, yet we’ve been able to stand firm with the confidence that God is in control.

And I think that confidence explains our relative calm. It’s the reason we haven’t resorted to panic measures like your protests. There’s something to be said for bearing under bad news with equanimity. It would be healthier for you, as it was healthier for us while Obama served as president.

Your trust in God could include prayer:

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good. (1 Tim. 2:1-3a)

Calm Down

Finally, take a deep breath. If you can remember this is still a democracy, if you can take the long view, and especially if you can trust God, you might be able to calm your panic.

It will do you a lot of good. It will do us all good. (For more from the author of “Living under a President You Didn’t Want: Four Words of Encouragement for Liberals” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.