Clinton Foundation CEO Mysteriously Missing; Massive Conspiracy of Silence by Mainstream Media

Eric Braverman, the Clinton Foundation CEO from 2013 until 2015, has apparently been missing since October. His absence has fueled speculations in the blogosphere but so far has been ignored by the media.

Some speculate, with good reason, that Braverman may have gone into hiding after an email mentioning his name was released by Wikileaks on October 22 of this year. In the March 2015 email exchange, Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden told Clinton campaign manager and confidant John Podesta there was a mole within the Clinton Foundation. Podesta in his reply told Tanden the mole was Braverman.

Braverman had abruptly resigned from the Clinton Foundation shortly before this email exchange took place. And then, after the email exchange was made public by Wikileaks, Braverman vanished from the public eye.

This seems like a story that someone might want to report.

The last evidence of Braverman’s public activity was October 12, when he posted his last tweet on Twitter. (Usually he tweets about once a month. His “husband,” Neil Brown, hasn’t tweeted since August, although he rarely tweets.) I left a voicemail on Braverman’s personal phone and sent him an email, but received no response. He is still listed as a lecturer at Yale University and, contrary to some reports, there is a record of his lectures going back several years. I contacted the press office and Braverman’s department at Yale and received no response.

Braverman, the Podesta Leaks and the Clinton Foundation

Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, told The Daily Mail that Podesta’s emails were leaked to the organization by a disgruntled insider, not the Russians. Consequently, there are suspicions it may have been Braverman. (Though some of the Podesta emails are dated after Braverman’s tenure with the foundation, if he had Podesta’s password, he could still have accessed his email after leaving.)

Re: Tweet from @JoeNBC
From:[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 2015-03-08 19:48
Subject: Re: Tweet from @JoeNBC

Holy Moses.
Sent from my iPhone> On Mar 8, 2015, at 5:23 PM, John Podesta wrote:
>
> Eric Braverman
>
> JP
> –Sent from my iPad–
> [email protected]
> For scheduling: [email protected]
>
>> On Mar 8, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Neera Tanden wrote:
>>
>> @JoeNBC: A source close to the Clintons tell @ron_fournier to “follow the money” and find the real HRC scandal. https://t.co/lPTQY0L0o4
>>
>> I’m hoping someone is keeping tabs on Doug Band. Quote in here is from someone who worked in Clinton Foundation.

Politico ran a long story about Braverman’s ouster in 2015. Based on email correspondence released by Wikileaks, Braverman was apparently hired by Chelsea Clinton to clean up the corruption in the foundation, but then forced out of the foundation by longtime Clinton loyalists; sources say Podesta made him a target.

In 2011, Podesta’s leaked emails show that Chelsea was aggressively calling for an internal investigation. For example, former President Bill Clinton had raised over $1 billion though the foundation to rebuild 100 villages in India, but only $53 million was spent on the project. Also, Braverman resigned at the time Hillary was arranging one of her notorious “pay to play” deals with foreign leaders: a $12 million contribution from the king of Morocco in exchange for giving a speech.

#Where’s Eric: Did Braverman Request Asylum From the Russians?

screen-shot-2016-12-23-at-2-08-48-pm-1024x760

So far Braverman’s apparent disappearance has only been discussed by bloggers and fringe websites, which often mix the fact that he has gone silent with other unconfirmed claims. For instance, the site WhatDoesItMean.com reported that Braverman requested asylum in Russia on October 23. The information apparently came from a Russian blogger, who reported it in a rambling blog post on LiveLeak.

That’s pretty thin evidence. Moreover, WhatDoesItMean.com is known for posting questionable news stories. The left-leaning, myth-debunking site Snopes labeled the news site’s account of Braverman as false, but based its judgment on the fact that website publishes false stories. Aside from this circular argument, Snopes provides no independent evidence for its judgment. I contacted the Russian embassy and received no response. So at the moment, the claim that Braverman requested asylum from the Russians is an unconfirmed rumor.

#Where’sEric: Could Braverman be in FBI Protective Custody?

There are also rumors that Braverman is in FBI protective custody, perhaps in exchange for testifying against the Clintons. Sources within the FBI have said it is likely there will be indictments handed down over the Clinton Foundation’s pay-to-play schemes. Senior FBI officials told CNN that the investigation into the Clinton Foundation had never ended and is still ongoing. According to The Daily Caller News Foundation, that probe now involves as many as five FBI bureaus across the country: New York, Little Rock, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and Miami.

Would the FBI have hustled Braverman to safety once it was known Podesta had pegged him as a mole? This theory seems plausible, given what we know. But there is still no independent evidence of it.

All Questions, No Answers

If Braverman is in hiding to protect his life, is it because he leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks, and/or is he preparing to testify against the Clintons? The one thing we know is that Braverman has disappeared from the public eye, and that neither he, his “husband” Neil Brown, nor his family, nor his Yale employers, has made a single public statement to dispel the speculations. (For more from the author of “Clinton Foundation CEO Mysteriously Missing; Massive Conspiracy of Silence by Mainstream Media” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

An Ex-Gay Christian Says It Was Easier to Leave Homosexuality Than to Change His Diet

A man named Eric posted this on my Facebook page, and it was heartbreaking to read.

I have struggled with weight problems for years and it’s catching up with me. On December 5th I spent time in the E.R. due to dangerously high blood pressure. They’re still working on getting the right combo of drugs to get it under control. I am morbidly obese and it is a matter of life and death.

Some of you reading this can relate to Eric’s situation — the fear of imminent heart failure; the knowledge that you are killing yourself with your diet; the hope that doctors can help you but the guilt that you have brought this on yourself. …

But what can you do? You’ve tried every diet you know, you’ve confessed the sin of gluttony or unhealthy eating to the Lord a thousand times over, and still, you’re overweight — grossly overweight — and now it’s threatening your health.

Eric then said this:

I left homosexuality behind 6 years ago. That was SO much easier than getting my weight under control. I do understand being isolated from life due to weight. It’s more than just what people think. It is a physical bondage that fatigues and makes just fitting in a chair difficult. Other than learning about God’s word and knowing Jesus there is nothing I want more than to be healthy.

These are strong words: It was SO much easier to leave homosexuality than to get his weight under control. That is saying a lot.

I know many people who have struggled with same-sex attraction, some experiencing instantaneous, miraculous transformation, others working for years to see those attractions gradually diminish, and still others fighting for decades to see change without any success.

Yet Eric says that leaving homosexuality, obviously by God’s grace, was so much easier than changing his relationship to food.

When God set me free from heavy drug use in 1971 at the age of 16 (including shooting heroin), I couldn’t relate to those who would say, “I’m a recovering drug addict.”

For me, that was a thing of the past, someone who I used to be, and it had no bearing on my life after that. To this day, I do not think of myself as a recovering drug addict.

But when it comes to food, I live as if I’m a recovering food addict. In fact, one of the first chapters in my new book Breaking the Stronghold of Food (written together with my wife Nancy), is entitled, “Confessions of a Recovering Food Addict.”And even though I’ve been totally free from food addictions since late August, 2014, when my lifestyle transformation began, I live as if one wrong bite could set me back. Why play with fire?

After all, illegal drugs do not play a regular role in our lives — in other words, when I quit getting high in 1971, I cut off contact with that old part of my life — but when it comes to food, we need it to live, and we are constantly surrounded by unhealthy food choices.

As someone on the road constantly — traveling 30 hours straight on overseas flights, at endless airports and hotels, being taken out to restaurants all the time — I know how easy it would be to fall back into my old lifestyle. That’s why I don’t make any exceptions to my healthy eating. I recognize that the Lord has given me grace, and I know that one misstep could open the door to another and then another. I do not take my freedom for granted!

Getting back to our friend Eric, for whom I ask you to pray, he wrote this at the end of his post, explaining that there was one more reason he was ordering our new book, and for him, it was another reason to get healthy: “the morbidly obese make poor witnesses for Christ.”

Nancy and I really do understand how difficult the battles are (we’re totally candid in the book, and you’ll laugh — or sigh — at some of our stories), and that’s why there’s not an ounce of condemnation in anything we write.

We don’t want to beat you up, we want to help you out, and we’re convinced that if the Lord could help us, with all our bad eating habits and food addictions, He can help anyone. (For the record, according to recognized weight standards, which are probably a little too generous, we were both obese in the past.)

So, if you find yourself struggling with unhealthy eating habits or food addictions, even if you’re not overweight, there is a solid, lasting way out. And if you’re obese or morbidly obese, all the more are these promises for you. Even when it comes to food, “If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36). There is a better way! (For more from the author of “An Ex-Gay Christian Says It Was Easier to Leave Homosexuality Than to Change His Diet” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Marco Rubio’s Response to Kerry’s Anti-Israel Speech Will Make You Fist-Pump!

Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla. blasted Secretary of State John Kerry’s “shameful” speech in a message posted to Facebook Wednesday.

“Secretary Kerry today once again decided to cater to the demands of freedom’s enemies and devote an entire speech to disparaging a country that is one of our closest allies,” Rubio wrote. He accused the Obama administration of abandoning American values abroad. “When we fail to take a stand against those that seek to deny #Israel’s right to exist or try to question the Jewish history of Jerusalem, we hurt not just Israel but our own credibility.”

“The greatest immediate threat to the future of Israel is not a stalled peace process, or settlements, but the abandonment of the Jewish state by the current U.S. administration at a time when it needs America’s support more than ever,” Rubio declared.

“I look forward to working with President-elect Trump and his incoming team to restore our relationship with Israel to its proper place … This shameful episode in American foreign policy cannot end soon enough,” he concluded.

Senator Tim Scott, R-S.C. (B, 89%) also condemned Kerry’s speech, characterizing the Obama administration’s proposals as “a path to pain.”

Republicans in Congress are calling to defund the United Nations in light of the anti-Israel resolution passed last week.

“Twenty-two percent of the United Nations budget comes from the American taxpayer, and I’m going to lead the charge to withhold funding until they repeal this resolution,” Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. (F, 30%) told CNN.

Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) promised congressional action in conversation with the Washington Free Beacon.

“The disgraceful anti-Israel resolution passed by the UNSC was apparently only the opening salvo in the Obama administration’s final assault on Israel,” said Cruz. “President Obama, Secretary Kerry, Ambassador Power, and their colleagues should remember that the United States Congress reconvenes on January 3rd, and under the Constitution we control the taxpayer funds they would use for their anti-Israel initiatives.”

Despite near hysterics from Secretary of State Kerry in opposition to Israeli settlements in traditional Israeli lands Wednesday, the next Congress and president are unlikely to continue Obama’s radical anti-Israel agenda. (For more from the author of “Marco Rubio’s Response to Kerry’s Anti-Israel Speech Will Make You Fist-Pump!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Let ‘Em Hang: A Response to Todd Starnes’s Column on the Christmas Mall Fights

Brawls involving hundreds of teenagers broke out at 15 malls in at least eight states the day after Christmas.

Yesterday, Fox News columnist and friend of The Stream Todd Starnes offered some thoughts about the incidents in a column entitled “Hey Parents, Malls Are for Commerce — Not Babysitting.” In the spirit of friendly disagreement, here are a few alternative arguments.

‘No Rhyme or Reason,’ or Coordinated Effort?

Starnes claims that “there was no rhyme or reason to the violence.” Reports from police actually indicate that there may have been a reason and a rhyme — in fact, an organized one.

Starnes acknowledges the speculation that social media played a role in the mall outbreaks, but given the striking similarity of the events (15 malls? Eight states? Same night?), I’m willing to give a little more credit to the organized-on-social-media theory than the growing-problematic trend theory Starnes favors.

It smells to me like a one-off online plot of mischievous rebels, and not something that should give all rule-abiding teens a bad rap from now on.

Unsupervised Teenagers Aren’t Terrorists

Starnes claims that “anyone under the age of 18 without parental supervision has no business in a mall.”

Not so long ago, I was under 18 myself, and spent my fair share of time in a mall with friends. Moreover, I have young teen relatives with young teen friends who regularly enjoy grabbing lunch at the food court, trying on clothes or catching a movie — at the mall.

I live not five minutes from one of the most popular malls in my metropolitan area, and I would say over 50 percent of the shoppers I squeeze by while meandering between stores are those “underage young people” Starnes complains about.

The worst offense I’ve seen from them in my several years of mall shopping? Not moving out of the way fast enough when I’m in a rush because they are too busy laughing with their friends, flirting with each other, or, in recent years, Snapchatting their very non-eventful exploits.

In other words, while unruly youth and teen violence are real issues, I don’t think they are the shopping-mall trends that Starnes seems to indicate.

To be fair, some share Starnes’s concerns following the frightening fights on Monday, with reports of certain malls considering restrictions or bans on underage teen shoppers. Only about one-tenth of American malls currently have such restrictions, and many others are loath to implement them. I get why.

When I first graduated college, I snagged a part-time job at my local mall’s Forever 21 to tide me over financially while navigating job applications and interviews in my field. Can you imagine how forlorn a Forever 21 would be without after school and weekend teen shoppers? (If you have never shopped in a Forever 21 — and I don’t necessarily recommend it — you’ll just have to trust me.)

The Real Reason Malls are Shutting Down

Starnes seems to think that these “rampaging mobs of teenage thugs” are the reason you don’t see as many malls anymore — or the ones you do see look creepy and abandoned, a relic of bygone ’80s glory.

“Why do you think so many enclosed shopping centers are shutting down?” Starnes asks. “Nobody wants to risk their life for a Cinnabon or a discount on hand soap at Bath & Body Works.”

Starnes is right — I don’t want to risk my life standing in line for a Cinnabon or buying discount soap at Bath & Body Works (how did he know what I do at the mall?!). But to be honest, when I go to the mall I am more concerned about a deranged lone wolf with a knife or a gun who might be attracted to a busy place, and not “little thuglings” hanging out with their friends. That’s why I keep my Glock on my body and my license to carry in my wallet (one of the benefits of being a mall shopper over the age of 21 in Texas).

The truth is that people have long been analyzing why malls are closing down (and will likely continue to close over the next decade). While the mall I frequent is always teeming with activity (the benefit of catering to an upper-middle class area), others, like the one my mom took me shopping at in the 90’s, are emptying out.

One explanation is the rise of online shopping, as this New Yorker article explained back in 2014. Another is the waning relevance of middle-class department stores like Macy’s and J.C. Penney, which have traditionally served as “anchor stores” and a main reason for people to go to a mall, according to this Money article.

A Cop’s Perspective

As someone who has grown up in a family of law enforcement and security officers, it’s easy for me to reach out to someone who can offer this unique perspective. I called my closest cop friend yesterday to ask whether Starnes’s statement that “if teenagers disrupt commerce and cause mayhem, they should spend the night in jail” was unequivocally fair.

My cop friend said no. He said in any fight involving anyone, the resulting consequences “totally depend” on the situation. He said it’s possible for one party to get arrested and another go free, for one or both (or several) to be handcuffed or made to sit down while the officers investigate, for one or multiple parties to be given tickets, etc.

Additionally, Starnes’s comment that “hardly anyone was arrested” in the December 26 mall fights is not exactly true. Eight teens were charged in Aurora, Ill. (where CNN reported that police were considering raising some misdemeanor charges to felonies), five teens arrested in Aurora, Colo., and seven juveniles were arrested in Memphis, Tenn.

If the multiple police officers responding to these calls on Monday decided to arrest only a certain amount of teens in each case, I am going to trust that they had a reason, and I’m also going to trust that their first priority (and rightly so) was the safety of all around.

(Side note: Christmas weekend can be one of the worst, busiest times for law enforcement officers. Filling jail cells with all 200 teens involved in no-weapons-found mall brawl might not be their top priority the day after Christmas.)

Teens Aren’t All Bad

There is one point that I’ll agree with Starnes on. America doesn’t need any more programs for youth paid for by the government — which is what Starnes says that some people are pushing for in light of Monday’s events. If there truly is a need for more youth programs, then churches, religious groups, non-profit or family-led efforts should step up and provide them. And in fact, many already are.

I won’t deny that trouble making teens are out there (aren’t they always?), but I’ve made somewhat of a habit of defending my Millennial generation, and that goes for those trailing behind a few years in age as well.

I say, let them eat Cinnabon — and shop — and hang at the mall — while we still have malls left. (For more from the author of “Let ‘Em Hang: A Response to Todd Starnes’s Column on the Christmas Mall Fights” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama May Have One More Nasty Surprise for Israel up His Sleeve

Abandoning the Jewish state at the U.N. last week may have only been the beginning for what President Obama has in store for Israel. He may have one more grand surprise left up his sleeve just weeks before he is set to officially leave office.

Forget about the chaos in the Middle East, Russia and China’s continuing aggression, Iran’s race to a nuclear bomb, ISIS’ worldwide terror campaign, and a potential genocide in South Sudan — Obama has his mind set on utilizing his last days in office toward sticking it to Israel.

Obama may declare in his final days in office that the United States recognizes an independent state of Palestine, a move that would undoubtedly have devastating security and diplomatic consequences for Israel.

Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been a thorn of moral equivalency in Israel’s side for years, is set to address a Jan. 15 peace conference in Paris. Rumors abound for Kerry’s exact agenda there, but there are worries that he will continue to publicly rebuke the Jewish state, or worse, announce recognition of a Palestinian state.

Kerry will join fellow foreign ministers of the world for a Paris Middle East peace conference. It does not appear that the confab will discuss any actions planned against ISIS or the Assad regime. They will not condemn Russia’s bombing campaign against innocent civilians. They will not address Iran-backed Hezbollah’s sectarian slaughter. Instead, the efforts of this conference will circulate around forcing their will upon Israel, the region’s only democracy.

Israel has refused to even attend the conference, on the grounds that only Israel and the Palestinians should be negotiating terms of statehood, as terms should not be imposed on them by the international community.

Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman has compared the coming Paris conference to a “modern version of the Dreyfus Trial,” referencing the infamous 19th-century verdict against a French Jewish military officer that was stained by overt anti-Semitism. “This time, the whole people of Israel and the whole state of Israel will be in the guilty dock,” Liberman said.

Officials in Jerusalem are concerned that world powers may also use the conference to ready a plethora of vehemently anti-Israel motions in the U.N. Security Council, and utilize Obama’s last days to push them through.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Tuesday that he’s encouraged by the coming conference. He hopes that the conference mandates an end to Israeli housing construction in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Abbas presides over a government in the city of Ramallah that pays the families of terrorists who kill Israeli Jews.

Last week, the Obama administration abstained on a U.N. resolution condemning Israel. The resolution targeted Israeli “settlements” in disputed lands and announced that two of the holiest sites in Judaism — the Western Wall and the Temple Mount — and the entirety of the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, were all “Palestinian” lands.

As Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz has explained, the resolution defies international law. Israel has the right to build in the disputed territories, and this right has been recognized by previous U.S. administrations.

The U.S. government, which has veto power over Security Council resolutions, could have voted no and blocked the measure. Instead, Team Obama chose to abstain, reportedly under the direct orders from the president himself, letting the resolution through.

The move has provided tremendous encouragement for Israel’s enemies, including the terror groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. They celebrated the Obama measure, declaring that it will lead to Israel’s “isolation” and “boycott.”

Israel has responded to the U.N. ruling with decisive ferocity. It has decided to cut funding from United Nations programs and recall ambassadors from countries that sponsored the resolution. Republicans in Congress have suggested that the U.S. should follow suit and slash funding to the U.N. as well. The U.S. contributes approximately $8 billion a year to the international body.

Unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state would cement President Obama as the most anti-Israel president since its founding. Will he betray the American people’s firm support for the Jewish state, and take his administration down the path of demonization and hate? (For more from the author of “Obama May Have One More Nasty Surprise for Israel up His Sleeve” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Drive the U.N. Into the Sea

This weekend, on the eve of the Jewish holiday that marks that people’s resistance to savage pagan occupation (Chanukah), the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution that is stunning in its moral blindness. It condemned all Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem — two regions where Jews lived for thousands of years before an Arab set foot in Palestine.

Those regions were captured from Jordan in one of Israel’s many wars of self-defense against genocide. They have never belonged to any Palestinian state, because one has never existed. Jordan doesn’t want them back. In a series of agreements, Israel has accepted that most of those conquered regions would form the basis of a Palestinian state, if it ever felt safe in granting one.

Jews are buying land and moving to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In theory, this shouldn’t be a problem for a new Palestinian state; these Jews would form a tiny minority of its citizens, much smaller than the Arab contingent of Israeli citizens. So why are Jewish settlements considered an obstructionist “barrier to peace”? Why condemn Israel for letting its citizens buy land and live there?

Need Palestine be Judenrein?

The answer, of course, is obvious: Because the Palestinians are viciously intolerant of Jews, and today only Israeli troops keep the Arab majority in the conquered territories from “driv[ing] the Jews into the sea,” as the charter of Hamas promises. (Hamas is the radical Islamist terrorist organization that most Palestinians support.) Jews were violently expelled from virtually every Muslim country in 1948, from ancient communities that long pre-dated the warrior cult of Islam.

So the assumption on which the UN based its resolution is that of course the Palestinians would do that to the Jews in these territories, the moment they got the chance. Therefore, because the Palestinians are so intolerant and wanna-be genocidal, to plant Jews in the territory which the Palestinians were promised is an obstacle to peace. Have you got that? Such is the moral logic that governs the “international community.”

Israelis, being realists, know this too — and they’re not going to hand over Jews to the tender mercies of a Hamas administration. So in a sense, you could say that by settling Jews in a region, Israel is laying permanent claim to it. That need not be true, of course — if a Palestinian government could be found that wouldn’t demand that every square inch of its territory be judenrein.

The U.N. Only Holds White People to Civilized Standards

The resolution condemning Israel was classic United Nations: A preening, self-congratulatory moralistic veneer that covers blank hatred and a vicious will to power.

Indeed, as Paul Johnson documents in his classic history Modern Times, passing such resolutions and promoting such bankrupt policies has largely been the function of the United Nations since the 1950s, when the loathsome Kantian moralizer Dag Hammarskjold transformed the international body into the action arm of the “non-aligned” nations — which were almost uniformly run by vicious dictators (Castro, Nasser, Idi Amin) who drove their people into unprecedented poverty and misery.

It was Hammarskjold who cozied up to post-colonial despots, some of them guilty of genocide, while damning the Europeans who were trying to leave their colonies in some kind of livable order. According to Johnson, Hammarskjold actually said that black-on-black genocide was none of the U.N.’s business; its job was simply to remove the white man from Africa. In other words, it seems that Hammarskjold invented multiculturalism — which boiled down, is the theory that only white people can be expected to hew to civilized standards. So only they should be condemned.

The U.N. Headquarters is Already a Madhouse

The latest piece of paper from the toxic United Nations applies the same logic to Jews. Of course they should be held to the very highest canons of civil rights legislation — while we take it for granted that Arab Muslims will slaughter Jewish women and children the first time they get the chance. Just accept that moral standard, as President Obama did when he waved the resolution through, and everything makes perfect sense.

The United Nations does not serve the high ideals of peaceful cooperation and human rights for which it was founded so much as it uses them as rhetorical masks for the exercise of power. Human rights panels are frequently chaired by intolerant tyrannies like Islamist Saudi Arabia. Western nations typically send to the U.N. their most utopian, ideological representatives, who use the institution to promote a “globalist” agenda that arrogates power from democratic governments into the hands of unaccountable committees.

Austin Ruse, who for decades has fought to defend the rights of unborn children and the family, has recounted here at The Stream how the U.N. tries to impose manufactured “rights” to abortion and “transgender” recognition on unwilling elected governments. It has invented global “crises” such as “overpopulation” and climate change catastrophe to serve as the pretext for U.N. agencies to grasp for ever more power over the wealth, laws and policies of nations such as ours.

In a sane world, which perhaps President Trump will help to bring about, the U.S. would not fund the United Nations, host it, or even dignify it by being a member. New York City would be a much better place without the lavish consulates of starving Third World countries dotting the Upper East Side. Take the U.N. headquarters, that massive monument to hypocrisy and double standards, and put it to proper use: as a public mental hospital. (For more from the author of “Drive the U.N. Into the Sea” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

13 Victories Conservatives Want From President Trump by Next Christmas

What should conservatives expect from Donald Trump’s first 100 days of presidency?

Aided by full Democratic control of Congress, President Obama was able to do much harm in his first 100 days of White House control. In 2009, Obama had virtually free reign to implement his agenda.

He used that free reign to … pass a then-$787 billion stimulus bill; create a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq; pass a budget appropriating funds for Obamacare, expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (i.e. SCHIP); relax enforcement of federal marijuana laws; formally endorse the U.N. Statement on ‘Human Rights, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity’; end the federal funding ban on embryonic stem cell research; and overturn a ban on federal funding for international abortion providers.

Now the tables have turned. Donald Trump is president-elect and the Republicans have full control of Congress. What follows is the conservative’s Christmas 2017 wish list. These are the agenda items Republicans should demand of the Trump administration in its first 100 days of White House control.

1. Full repeal of Obamacare

This is the big one. The Republicans emphatically won control of the House of Representatives in 2010 solely on the “stop Obamacare” wave and promise. They gained control of the Senate in 2014 on the same promise. Congressional Republicans have repeatedly broken their promises on this disastrous law.

Now is the time. Donald Trump needs to pressure the Republicans in Congress to fulfill their promises and deliver on a full and complete repeal of Obamacare. They can accomplish this by using budget reconciliation to pass the repeal without giving the Democrats an opportunity to filibuster. Failure to immediately deliver on this, as health insurance premiums continue to rise for American families, will break American confidence in the Republican Party and doubtlessly put GOP control of Congress in jeopardy in the 2018 midterms, along with Trump’s chance for reelection in 2020.

2. Border security and The Wall

While Obamacare’s repeal is the signature policy demand on the Right, illegal immigration and a southern border wall between the U.S. and Mexico are the signature issues that propelled Donald Trump to the front of the pack during the Republican presidential primary.

Trump has proposed a concrete wall anywhere from 35 feet to 50 feet or higher, estimating the cost of his proposal to be as high as $12 billion. He’s also famously pledged to make Mexico pay for it.

Daniel Horowitz has previously written for CR on the necessity for a legitimate southern border wall. And while some question the practicality of a concrete wall, a double-layered border fence is practical, effective (where it has been tried in San Diego and Israel), would cost roughly $2 billion, and, in fact, is already required by the 2006 Secure Fence Act.

The construction of the wall will not be completed overnight. But in the same way that President Obama budgeted funds for Obamacare before that law’s passage in his $3.5 trillion 2010 budget, Trump ought to insist Congress do the same to address the porous southern border.

3. Government lobbying ban

As part of his promise to “drain the swamp,” President-elect Trump pledged to institute a five-year lobbying ban for former officials after they leave the White House or Congress. Additionally, Trump has proposed a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of foreign governments.

These are common sense reforms that would decrease the influence of lobbyists for crony capitalists in D.C., and they have bipartisan support. Trump can accomplish his lobbying ban through executive order, but going through Congress would obviously have more force and social capital.

4. Repeal Dodd-Frank

“Dodd-Frank has made it impossible for bankers to function.” Donald Trump told Reuters back in May. “It makes it very hard for bankers to loan money for people to create jobs, for people with businesses to create jobs. And that has to stop.”

He is absolutely right. This atrocious piece of 2010 legislation (officially the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act) established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Financial Stability Oversight Council — two boards of unelected bureaucrats that hang over the heads of banks in this country, zapping them with millions of dollars in fines and draining needed capital for investment and growth out of the marketplace to … only God knows where.

While liberals and populists love the idea of sticking it to the Big Bad Banks, like most all liberal policies, it has had the unintended consequence of hurting the little guy (small community banks) the most.

As of June 2015, American financial institutions suffered more than $160 billion in losses to government fines, which translates to a loss of approximately $3 trillion of potential growth, stifling job creation. Congress should enact and President Trump should sign a repeal of Dodd-Frank, unleashing capital into the economy and stimulating job growth in parts of the country that so desperately need it.

5. Nominate a pro-life justice to the Supreme Court

For many voters, keeping Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat out of the clutches of a liberal Clinton-appointed judicial activist was the single reason to vote for Donald Trump. On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly promised to nominate a pro-life justice to the court.

Trump won, and to the victor goes the Supreme Court nomination. The president-elect has floated a widely praised list of legal minds. The problem is, as the Eagle Forum’s Andy Schlafly told Conservative Review contributor Steve Deace, though many justices on Trump’s list have the backing of the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist society, “most of them are actually not pro-life.”

Take Wisconsin Justice Diane Sykes, “probably the top pick of the Federalist Society,” according to Schlafly. “If you dig into her record you find that when she was a state court judge, she sentenced two pro-life advocates to jail for 60 days for a peaceful protest they engaged in. She also struck down an Indiana law that defunded Planned Parenthood,” Schlafly stated.

“This is not a pro-life judge,” he said. Conservatives need to hold President-elect Trump’s feet to the fire on this issue. Trump must nominate a justice who has a clear record of unabashedly pro-life, pro-Constitution rulings. Anything less would repeat the mistakes of previous Republican presidents, and lead to the nomination of another liberal David Souter or back-stabber John Roberts.

6. Pain-capable abortion ban

It is not enough to simply nominate a pro-life justice and trust the courts to take care of the abortion issue. Congress and enforcement from the executive branch is necessary to end the inhumane and evil practice of late-term abortions. Trump went so far as to promise a “Pro-life Coalition” on the campaign trail.

Trump can move beyond campaign rhetoric by signing into law a federal ban on abortions after 20 weeks, the point at which a child is capable of feeling pain. The cruelty and inhumanity of abortion is the same at all stages of a child’s development in the womb. Public opinion has swung in favor of the pro-life movement, and tangible policy achievements by the incoming Republican administration are more possible than ever (and the pain-capable abortion ban has already passed through the House of Representatives once).

7. Defund Planned Parenthood and make the Hyde Amendment permanent

The abortion mill that was caught on tape allegedly discussing the illegal sale of baby body parts has been formally recommended for prosecution by the special House committee responsible for investigating the illicit activities first exposed by the Center for Medical Progress. Efforts by conservatives to defund Planned Parenthood have been repeatedly defeated by threats of an Obama presidential veto and spineless Republicans who melt at the whisper of “shutdown.” But no more.

With the self-proclaimed pro-life Donald Trump in the White House, the veto threat is gone, and the worry over a government shutdown with it. There is no excuse to continue funneling tax dollars to Planned Parenthood now. And President-elect Trump should make the Hyde Amendment — which outlaws federal funding for abortion — permanent law, as he promised to do during the campaign.

8. First Amendment Defense Act

Congress and the president must act to protect the First Amendment rights of religious Americans. And President-elect Trump can accomplish that by signing into law the First Amendment Defense Act.

As the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah (A, 100%), explained, “The First Amendment Defense Act (S. 1598, H.R. 2802) would prevent any federal agency from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification to an individual, association, or business based on their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.”

“For example, the bill would prohibit the IRS from stripping a church of its tax exemption for refusing to officiate same-sex weddings.”

Trump has previously expressed conditional support for the legislation. “If Congress considers the First Amendment Defense Act a priority, then I will do all I can to make sure it comes to my desk for signatures and enactment,” Trump wrote in a letter last year.

Congress ought to make First Amendment protections for the religious a top priority. And Donald Trump ought to keep his promise to sign that legislation into law.

9. Fix the Fed

President-elect Trump has consistently railed against the Chinese and has pledged to designate the communist country a “currency manipulator” on his first day in office. He would do well to also look inward and tackle the number one manipulator of U.S. fiscal policy: the Federal Reserve.

John Gray and Tommy Behnke have written on the opportunity for Trump to affect major policy change at the Fed by filling two vacant positions on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (and potentially up to four by 2018) with hard-money advocates. The leadership at the Federal Reserve is responsible for run-away inflationary policies that have cut the purchasing power of the dollar, and for artificially low interest rates that have recklessly disrupted the business cycle. The Fed’s created bad incentives for entrepreneurial capital investment — creating the environment for another great recession.

In a positive sign, Donald Trump has endorsed a return to the gold standard, and voiced awareness of the Fed’s bad leadership. “Sadly, we all know what’s happening to the dollar,” Trump told The Street in 2011. “The dollar is going down, and it’s not a pretty picture, and it’s not being sustained by proper policy and proper thinking.” Trump should appoint members to the Federal Reserve Board that share his thinking on hard money and believe that a change in policy is necessary.

Additionally, Trump ought to sign into law Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. (A, 92%)’s legislation to audit the Fed to ensure accountability. He can also fight to enact positive reform by pushing to end the Fed’s dual mandate to keep the money supply stable and fight unemployment — a reform supported by Vice-president-elect Mike Pence.

10. Tax reform

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 40%) recently announced that comprehensive tax reform is all but guaranteed in 2017 using the budget reconciliation process, and stated he prefers a “revenue-neutral tax package.”

Republicans need to think bigger than “revenue neutral” and go for, as Brian Darling wrote for Conservative Review, “a wholesale scrapping of tax credit cronyism and massive tax cuts for business and individuals alike.”

What would that look like? It looks very much like adopting a plan proposed by President-elect Trump on the campaign trail. As CR’s John Gray wrote last year (“Donald Trump’s Tax Plan is YUUGE”), the Trump tax plan offered the largest tax cuts of any Republican plan proposed during the presidential primary:

The (Trump) tax cut not only easily surpasses all other candidates’ tax cuts in size, but it surpasses all of the other tax cuts combined! You heard that right. According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation, Jeb Bush’s tax cut of $3.665 trillion, Rand Paul’s tax cut of $2.974 trillion, and Marco Rubio’s tax cut of $4.14 trillion add up to an aggregate cut of $10.779 trillion. At $11.98 trillion, the Donald’s tax cut is YUGE.

Since his initial proposal, Trump has tweaked the plan to address criticisms. The latest iteration would reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, eliminate the death tax, permit families to deduct the full cost of child care, permit businesses to immediately expense all capital investments, and substantially lower individual income tax brackets to 12 percent, 25 percent, and 33 percent. These are great pro-growth ideas that conservatives ought to see signed into law next year.

11. Scrap Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders (DACA to start)

This is a Day 1 pledge from Trump that has been long-awaited by conservatives. Trump has promised to “cancel immediately all illegal and overreaching executive orders,” and he needs to start with President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty.

Recent statements by the president-elect indicate that he could be going back on his word and wavering on his promise to repeal the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals executive order that granted amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants. That is unacceptable equivocation.

Failure to repeal DACA, which Trump himself has called “illegal and unconstitutional,” would constitute a broken campaign promise of the highest order and signal that Trump is no different from the amnesty-embracing Establishment Republicans he railed against on the campaign trail.

12. Repeal the EPA “Waters of the United States” rule

The Environmental Protection Agency is on a constant crusade for ever more control over every aspect of Americans’ everyday lives. In 2009, the agency moved to declare carbon dioxide — otherwise known as human breath — a “dangerous pollutant” in order to introduce a slew of new regulations to control the economy.

Likewise, in 2015 the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jointly issued a new water regulation that, in practice, illegally gave the EPA the authority to regulate non-navigable waters by redefining terms to circumvent restrictions on the EPA’s regulative authority in the Clean Water Act of 1972.

The result, as the National Federation of Independent Business concluded:

If rain collects on your property somewhere or you happen to have a pond or a stream bed that remains dry but for a small amount of time per year, then chances are the federal government will be requiring you to pay an exorbitant amount of money for a permit.

Landowners in violation of the rule could be fined an average of $37,500 per day. The EPA’s power grab essentially granted the administration an unlimited ability to extort land owners. Congress has attempted to pass a repeal bill to rein in the EPA, but President Obama vowed to veto any and all such repeal legislation. President-elect Trump needs to sign that repeal legislation in 2017.

13. National right to carry

“The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans,” reads Donald Trump’s official policy position on the right to bear arms. “The Constitution doesn’t create that right — it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.”

To that end, the president-elect has called for national concealed carry reciprocity. He declared: “A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.”

Almost every Republican in Congress claims to be pro-gun rights, and now with Republican control of the government, it is time to finally restore the constitutional right to bear arms for every American with a national concealed carry permit.

These are the campaign promises. These are the agenda items. 2017 is the time to transform talk into action.

Check back with Conservative Review next Christmas to see which promises President Trump fulfilled, and which ones he broke in 2017. (For more from the author of “13 Victories Conservatives Want From President Trump by Next Christmas” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

6 Times the PC Police Tried to Steal Christmas This Year

We are in the heart of Christmas season, so that means it’s time for the tolerance Grinches to come out of their closets once again. And, despite its dumpster fire excesses, it is only fitting that the year 2016 close with the memory of these recent incidents and examples of America’s perennial War on Christmas.

1. No to “religious-themed” displays of Santa deity

An Oregon school district instructed staff to sacrifice Christmas symbols at the altar of “diversity.” According to a memo sent by the Hillsboro School District, school staff could still decorate their offices, but were asked to “be respectful and sensitive to the diverse perspectives and beliefs of our community and refrain from using religious-themed decorations or images like Santa Claus.”

Santa Claus is now too much for this Portland-adjacent school district.

2. Emergency Christmas tree memo

Government officials threatened to trash a Christmas tree in a cubicle at the Department of Veterans Affairs office in Philadelphia. A VA employee, who asked to remain anonymous, informed The Washington Times of one “chilling” memo:

“There is a Christmas tree, ornaments, and decorations in the cubicle across from Luis Stevenson’s desk (the same cubicle where the scanner is housed),” VA supervisor Rebecca Cellucci told workers in a late November email marked “high” importance. “If this belongs to you, please claim it. Otherwise, it will be discarded on Friday.”

3. It’s religious censorship, Charlie Brown

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is alleged that a middle school staffer’s First Amendment rights were violated after school officials tried to censor a “Charlie Brown Christmas” holiday poster, as it also contained a Bible quote.

CBS DFW reported:

A Patterson Middle School staffer had placed the poster depicting a “Charlie Brown Christmas” on a school door. It showed Linus and the line from the Bible “unto you is born this day in the city of David a savior.”

The principal told the staffer that the drawing could remain, but the biblical quote had to go.

A.G. Paxton joined a lawsuit against the school, invoking the state’s 2013 “Merry Christmas law” (under then-Gov. Rick Perry) that permits biblical references to Christmas material. A district court judge eventually ruled in favor of the teacher’s rights, restoring the display of the poster.

4. “Civil liberties” triggering

A lawsuit taken up by the ACLU forced the small Indiana community of Knightstown to take down a cross from its Christmas tree, after the local town council decided it could not win a legal battle involving the ACLU.

The local resident who filed the lawsuit claimed that the existence of a cross-bearing Christmas tree on public land “violated his civil liberties.”

5. No school choirs for this Tar Heel Christmas concert

A list of school choirs in Wake County, N.C., were prohibited from performing at an off-campus Christmas celebration after a lawsuit from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which regularly brings cases against any semblance of theism in the public square.

According to the Raleigh News & Observer:

The Wisconsin-based foundation argued that it was unconstitutional for the school choirs to perform at the annual nativity celebration sponsored by the Church of Latter-day Saints in Apex. Wake school officials said they acted after the foundation forwarded a YouTube video in which a church official makes statements such as how the event “represents a wonderful opportunity for you to bear testimony of Christ to your friends.”

“The advice of Tharrington Smith (the district’s attorney) is that it put the district in the position of potentially endorsing a religious viewpoint,” a school district spokesman told the Observer.

6. The war on … “holiday”?!

And if all the Christmas holiday sterilization on America’s college campuses wasn’t enough for you, one professor at Texas Woman’s University now wants you to stop saying the word “holiday” in association with the season altogether.

An online post on the university website suggested holding a “secular celebration,” offering suggestions on how to avoid “missteps” that might be beyond the diverse and multicultural pale … or something like that.

Though since removed by the school, Dallas’ WFAA 8 offers what is allegedly the original text, on Scribd:

Consider naming the party, if it is scheduled for December, without using the word “holiday.” “Holiday” connotes religious tradition and may not apply to all employees. For educational institutions, a December gathering may instead be called an “end of semester” party. For a business office, an “end of (fiscal) year” party may be more appropriate.

Further benevolent suggestions:

Try to assemble and include a diverse group of employees in the planning of the party. This would include, as much as possible, non-Christian employees of Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and other religions, as well as non-believers.

Avoid religious symbolism, such as Santa Claus, evergreen trees or a red nosed reindeer, which are associated with Christmas traditions, when sending out announcements or decorating for the party. Excellent alternatives are snowflakes, snowmen or winter themes not directly associated with a particular holiday or religion.

Avoid playing music associated with a faith tradition, such as Christmas carols. Consider a playlist of popular, celebratory party music instead.

I’d just say forget the whole thing and grab lunch together, but the potential presence of a Christmas tree in the restaurant might send someone into shock. You have to be careful about these things, after all.

The attempts to get around the fact that countless objects and events during the winter season revolve around a major Christian holiday get more absurd every year, it seems. And even though our president-elect has assured that we’re going to start saying “Merry Christmas” again, that probably won’t deter the P.C. police and the secularist Grinches from continuing to try their darndest to ruin the holiday for the rest of us.

Either way, the season is still upon us, and that’s always cause for joy. Eat a cookie, drink some egg nogg, lend a helping hand, enjoy your priceless family’s company, and have a Merry Christmas, everyone.

Or don’t, your call. Just don’t try to ruin it for everyone else. (For more from the author of “6 Times the PC Police Tried to Steal Christmas This Year” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

30 Years Later, President Reagan’s 1986 Christmas Address Is More Relevant Than Ever

On Dec. 20, 1986, President Ronald Reagan gave a national radio address, centering on the importance of family values. He thought the family unit had begun to lose its place in American society.

In his speech, Reagan made reference to Will and Ariel Durant, a married pair of Pulitzer Prize-winning philosophers who wrote a multi-volume work of history called “The Story of Civilization.”

“Will and Ariel Durant called the family ‘the nucleus of civilization.’ They understood that all those aspects of civilized life that we most deeply cherish — freedom, the rule of law, economic prosperity, and opportunity — that all these depend upon the strength and integrity of the family,” Reagan said.

“Yet, for all that,” he continued, “in recent decades the family has come under virtual attack. It has lost authority to government rule writers. It has seen its central role in the education of young people narrowed and distorted. And it’s been forced to turn over to big government far too many of its own resources in the form of taxation.”

Reagan’s remedy? Along with his honest, yet impactful, words speaking to the importance of the American family’s indispensable role, the president called on Americans to look toward the holy family in Bethlehem as a model: “[L]et us remember that in the midst of all the happy bustle of a season there is a certain quietness, a certain calm: the calm of one still night long ago and of a family — father, mother, and newborn child.”

Ronald Reagan’s message on family values is as relevant today as it ever was. Indeed, it is even more important today.

Consider: In 2015, over 40 percent of babies born in the U.S. were born to unmarried mothers. In 1986, the number stood around 25 percent.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 9.9 million single mothers raising children younger than 18 last year. In 1985, that number was 7.7 million. Further, among women who gave birth in 2015, over 415,000 were simply cohabitating with a partner (i.e. not married).

A lot of ink has been dedicated over the years about the unmistakable correlation between lower crime rates and offspring from a traditional household. And it only makes sense; kids growing up with single moms miss out on the immeasurable benefits such as confidence and discipline fathers provide.

Children from broken homes are also significantly more likely to live in poverty, and are more likely to suffer from mental health problems (especially in single-mother homes) as a result of the stress and anxiety they may face growing up in an unstable and/or unpredictable environment.

Raising children in broken households is not good for our communities, not good for our country, and not good for our world.

So, what’s to be done?

The real solution to this problem is something Pres. Reagan looked to in 1986: the perfect example of filial love, humility, and sacrifice, exemplified by the holy family — and which we celebrate on Christmas.

Of course, the holy family represents an ideal. But, religious or not, it’s an ideal we would all be better off striving toward. (For more from the author of “30 Years Later, President Reagan’s 1986 Christmas Address Is More Relevant Than Ever” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Jesus Came During a Time of Crisis. He Still Does

Like people throughout history, we are inclined to think of the challenges of our time as unique. Certainly, they are immense, ranging from the brutality of Islamist terrorists to the economic turmoil wracking much of the world.

Yet careful reflection on preceding eras demonstrates how throughout the saga of human experience, life has always been fraught with political intrigue, military adventurism and economic uncertainty.

Just take, say, Palestine in the first century A.D. The area we now know as the State of Israel was, in Jesus’s time, a Roman province. Herod, the non-Jewish “king” (under Roman auspices, of course), was the founder of a dynasty that lasted for about 100 years. He launched his rule by murdering 45 of the 70 members of the Sanhedrin. Over time, he murdered his wife, Mariamne, her brother and grandfather, and two of their sons. He murdered another son, Antipater, after learning that out of fear for his life Antipater was planning to have Herod assassinated. Like father, like son.

Of course, we read in Matthew 2 that a then-elderly Herod, his idolatry of power and willingness to use the blood of others to sustain it unabated by age, ordered the slaughter of all male children aged two and under in Bethlehem and its surrounding area upon learning that a King had been born in the city of David.

Immediately after the death of Herod in 4 B.C., Rome divided the province between his three sons. Falling not far from their ancestral tree, these men were harsh, immoral and extravagant. The one who figures most prominently in the New Testament, Herod Antipas, was called “that fox” by Jesus (Luke 13:32) and is perhaps most commonly recalled for ordering the beheading of John the Baptist after watching his step-daughter dance. Another, Herod Agrippa, rejoiced in being called a god by the people at public games in Caesarea, only to be stricken by an angel of the Lord and dying a few days later (Acts 12:20-23).

This complex political situation was made somewhat coherent through the governance of a Roman prefect, essentially the final authority in all civil matters, yet the overlapping jurisdictions are evidenced by the way the Gospels describe Jesus being marched around from one governor to the next in the hours before His crucifixion.

Palestine was not considered an active threat to Roman rule in the region; while there were Roman soldiers there to enforce Roman law, they amounted to less than a single full legion.

Life generally was hard. Estimates of tax rates range from 30 to 50 percent. They involved “Roman taxes and tributes but also religious taxes and taxes imposed by Herod the Great and later his sons. Among the taxes paid were tributes and direct taxes such as land taxes and a head tax. There were also duties, sales taxes, and extra taxes on items such as salt. In addition there were taxes for the building and upkeep of the temple and various tithes.”

Tax collection itself involved the selling, by the Romans, of the franchise for tax regions to influential men who, in turn, recruited tax collectors to squeeze the people. “The result was a system of robbery which left nothing to be desired for thoroughness,” wrote the late historian Paul Kretzmann. “Unjust valuation, extortion, blackmail, was the order of the day, and the people had to suffer.

Interestingly, we read in Luke 3 that John the Baptist told the soldiers who asked him how they could demonstrate their repentance of sin not to leave the military but to quit “shaking-down” the people — to quit extorting money from them.

As to Galilee, Jesus’s home region, it was small but politically significant. It was home to the Roman resort city of Sephoris, just a few miles from Nazareth; Sephoris was constructed during Jesus’s youth and it is very possible He worked there.

The region itself “was relatively prosperous, since the land and climate permitted abundant harvests and supported many sheep,” write Jaroslav Pelikan and E.P. Sanders in the Encyclopedia Britannica. “There were, of course, landless people, but the Herodian dynasty was careful to organize large public works projects that employed thousands of men. Desperate poverty was present too but never reached a socially dangerous level.”

However, Galilee suffered from a reputation for contention and insurrection. A man called Judas the Galilean led a revolt in 6 B.C. against the Roman taxation recorded in Luke 2. Arguably the founder of the Zealots, Acts 5 tells us that “Judas was killed and his followers scattered.” Perhaps it was this background of violence that prompted Nathaniel to say, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” when urged to come and meet Jesus, Nazareth being Jesus’s hometown in Galilee (John 1:46).

High taxation, Roman domination, cruel political machinations, and a faux Jewish ruling family made for a troubled existence in Jesus’s day for the people of Israel. Much like the world of our time, the Palestine of the first century was riven by human sin in all its debauched aspects. It was politically unstable, economically tenuous, and characterized by oppression.

Jesus came into a tumultuous world in a time of uncertainty, of sword and fist, of paganism and pride. Many of the political rulers of His age clung to power at the expense of others’ blood, and some even claiming to be gods. Kim Jong Un, the dictator of North Korea, has nothing on them. And even in the everyday-ness of life in Palestine, there was loss and disappointment, impermanence and hard striving.

Our world is no different, and He comes to us still today, not as an infant but as a Savior Who took into Himself the punishment for all of our sin as He died, suspended on a Roman cross at the behest of some of the Jewish religious leaders of His day. But in rising from the grave, He proclaimed His Lordship of all men, of all human history, and heralded a day in which a new earth will resonate with His justice and righteousness, with the glorious liberty of the children of God.

There is no national or international crisis, and no personal or family need, into which He still does not come and offer life and hope to all who will receive it. If His gift is unknown to you this Christmas, take it. It’s free. It’s real. It’s eternal. (For more from the author of “Jesus Came During a Time of Crisis. He Still Does” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.