On the radio Friday evening, LevinTV host Mark Levin warned conservatives of what the next Congress will look like if conservative voters don’t show up to the polls on Election Day.
During the opening segment, Levin pointed out that there are 37 tossup races in the House of Representatives, and 31 of those are in districts currently held by Republicans. This means that GOP voters will need to turn out if they want to keep those seats red.
Levin pointed to what the House of Representatives will look like if Democrats take over. He reminded listeners that several would-be committee chairmen, such as Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., have promised to use their newfound power against their political opponents – President Trump most of all.
Levin also noted that Democrats have “promised to reverse course” on President Trump’s thus-far booming economy, which would be terrible news for American jobs.
“You want to save your country or not?” he asked listeners.
“The Left is going to turn out. The Democrats are going to turn out,” he said later. “The issue is whether we are.”
(For more from the author of “Levin’s Warning: This Is What the House Will Look Like If Gop Voters Don’t Show up” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/6080137063_71b986b12f_b-1.jpg6461024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2018-11-04 15:53:472018-11-04 15:51:42Levin’s Warning: THIS Is What the House Will Look Like If GOP Voters Don’t Show up
Things were very worrisome back in the early days of tea party activism. We had RINOs constantly putting down people who rose up against the clear progressivism of the Democrat Party, instinctively knowing that it would destroy America. The RINOs didn’t like being called out for their flirtation with and in some cases outright acceptance of progressivism, and they were brutal to the conservatives and tea party members. In the end, they wanted nothing to do with pushing back against Obama, scared like rabbits that they would be called racist.
For many years we were so concerned that the progressive Republicans would drag the party to the far left that we wondered if entertaining a third-party bid would be the right direction. If the Republican Party was no longer the home for conservatives, then conservatives thought very long and hard about walking away. It was difficult, to be sure, starting over like so many other third parties before us, and many of us switched back and forth, thinking and overthinking, frustrated and concerned that these nominal Republicans would be the head of the party forever and would take the party down the useless road of becoming a small second party for decades to come.
The simple fact that they would rather work within progressivism to “get things done” showed that it would only be a short time before they would all be swallowed by the alligator.
Now, as a grassroots member, after two years of having a president who listens to the people who elected him — an unnatural occurrence since the Bushies took over the party of Reagan — I am starting to see the possibility that the worst RINOs of the party could leave, leaving room for more and more grassroots conservatives who can work to switch the party from progressive to conservative. For the eight years of Obama, that vision was not possible.
To be sure, we conservatives are at a disadvantage to win back the House and Senate, for the usual reasons. One big reason is that we have a ton of nominal Republicans leaving Congress because they cannot allow themselves to be associated with the president. But this is a blessing in disguise, because they have shown themselves, and exposing slimy politicians is half the battle. Another reason is the leadership of the NRCC, who continue to pearl-clutch over rhetoric that is true, but too direct, giving the organization cover to leave conservative Republicans in the lurch at critical times in their campaigns.
I’m not blind to the fact that we are still left with a majority of non-conservative members, but for a decade, we conservatives have left the party, flirted with third parties, and have been viciously and brutally maligned and purged. It is interesting to note that now, conservatives are joining and RINOs are leaving.
No, Donald Trump isn’t a conservative, but he listens to conservatives, and what he has accomplished so far has been phenomenal. Sure, conservatives argue against his policy on tariffs, and that all will come out in the wash in the future. But right now, Americans are on the side of Donald Trump — traditional Americans, who know the alternative is a deadly road of violence and mobs. We have a message, and we can turn the Republican Party toward the goal of destroying the destroyers and relegating them to second party, or perhaps pushing them to split, which would be even better.
For all his faults, I believe the job of president has turned Donald Trump into a better person. He has done more to advance conservatism than these nominal former Bushies who claim all day long they are conservative, but the facts don’t back them up.
President Trump wants nothing but the best for Americans, and he always strives to succeed for them. He is humbled by the honor of what his job is, and he has become, in the minds of Americans, a more honorable person.
The president, every day, says what he wants for America, and Americans love him for it. They love him because he stands up and fights in that city of hatred. Americans are proud of Donald Trump and happy with him. They want more of what he’s doing, because it makes us feel good about our country and our fellow Americans.
We are pulling away from where the Left was taking us with Obama, when the former president claimed we were no longer going to be prosperous, we were no longer going to be that shining city on a hill, that we were destroying the hemisphere, the rest of the world, the planet itself.
Because of Donald Trump, the American people are coming together as Americans. And it is becoming increasingly clear that the Republican Party with Trump as president can become the party of Americans, because clearly, the Democrats have become the party of American destruction. (For more from the author of “Conservatives Have an Opportunity to Take Over the Republican Party” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/vote.jpg8001200Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2018-11-02 22:17:492018-11-02 22:15:54Conservatives Have an Opportunity to Take Over the Republican Party
By Campus Reform. The University of Illinois Student Government voted Wednesday to impeach a conservative student based primarily on his political activity.
Andrew Minik, president of Turning Point USA at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, was impeached from his position as Chair of the Committee of Diversity and Inclusion (CoDI) after enduring a hearing that included accusations of using his own minority status to marginalize other minorities.
The articles of impeachment specifically cited Minik’s role in organizing a memorial wall for victims of illegal immigration among his offenses, alongside accusations that he has been delinquent in some of the paperwork required of the CoDI Chair.
The complaints against Minik, brought forth to the student assembly by President-elect Walter Lindwall and Vice President-elect Alice Zheng, accuse him of failing to “maintain a respectful decorum of fellow members of the campus community, maintain a welcoming environment for any individual regardless of opinion or background, and work consistently for the betterment of the organization, the student body, and the campus as a whole,” according to the ISG agenda docket for articles of impeachment.
The document further alleges that Minik “has, on multiple occasions, failed to distribute packets, notify the cancellation of committees, and has acted with bias in his role as chair in several instances,” as well as that he “failed to submit a statistical report of the diversity of the government by the February deadline.” (Read more from “Student Government Impeaches Student for Conservative Views” HERE)
_________________________________________
Protesters Converge on UI Quad as Student Conservatives Build ‘Wall’
By The News-Gazette. Joel Valdez, coordinator for the UI chapter of Turning Point USA, said the goal of the wall was to start a conversation.
“We’re here to highlight the people that have been killed by illegal immigrants,” said Valdez, 19. “These victims are often overlooked and ignored. We’re here to tell people their story.”
Since their protest is a silent one, protesters were hesitant to speak with The News-Gazette.
Just next to the wall, the Latina sorority Kappa Delta Chi held a fundraising event, selling nachos, horchata and Flaming Hot Cheetos.
Jessica Diaz, a Kappa Delta Chi sister and UI sophomore, said she admired the protesters’ commitment. She added that she was happy to see non-Hispanics joining the ranks of protesters. (Read more from “Protesters Converge on UI Quad as Student Conservatives Build ‘Wall'” HERE)
The creative team behind Black Rifle Coffee released released a hilarious new video on April Fools’ Day imagining what could happen when a conservative “comes out” to his liberal family.
Needless to say, this “progressive” family isn’t welcoming of their son’s conservative “lifestyle” and his support for the Second Amendment. You could say they explode.
Check it out:
“It’s amazing how violent people get when you’re just trying to articulate an opposing viewpoint,” the conservative character says at the end.
In “tolerant” places like Hollywood, coming out as a conservative or as a Republican is more shocking than coming out as gay. Conservatives are routinely discriminated against for their viewpoints. (For more from the author of “WATCH: Hilarious Black Rifle Coffee Guys Imagine a Conservative ‘Coming Out'” please click HERE)
There are apparently some topics Don Lemon does not want to talk about.
On Thursday, the CNN news anchor was discussing the FBI investigation into alleged Russian election meddling when one of his guests used a few trigger words that prompted Lemon cut to commercial rather than debate the topic.
In response to back-and-forth regarding allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials to tip the election in their favor, conservative commentator and radio host Ben Ferguson pointed out the double standard Democrats enjoy — doing things would have led to indictments if they were Republicans.
“There are a lot of people that feel like that there was special treatment that was given to people that work for Barack Obama and things that they did they would have been indicted for if they were Republicans,” he said.
“For example, when you clearly have top-secret information on a laptop that you have on a server in the basement of your house,” Ferguson continued, according to BizPac Review.
“And then you send those top-secret classified documents to people that aren’t even cleared to see them and then you forward them to your husband, who by the way is in jail by the name of Anthony Weiner.”
The CNN host became visibly agitated at the pivot from GOP baggage to past Democrat controversies.
“Man, what does this have to do with what we’re talking about?” Lemon asked. “The FBI has already investigated that! They’re been a million hearings on it. It’s water under the bridge!”
“No, it’s not!” Ferguson responded. “It’s water under the bridge for you, Don! It’s water under the bridge for you! It’s not for the rest of the people in this country!”
The debate devolved as Lemon shouted, “No! No! No! No! No!” over the dialogue, then cutting to commercial break.
When the program returned, Lemon opened up the floor to Ferguson — with the caveat that he not “hijack” the panel or dare discuss topics not involving Trump controversies.
“Listen, I don’t want to hear about Benghazi, I don’t want to hear about uranium,” Lemon explained, giving specific instruction on what not to talk about. “It has been litigated a million times –“
“Of course, because it doesn’t fit the narrative!” Ferguson interjected.
At this point the entire panel teamed up against the lone conservative, arguing that accusation of Clinton’s wrongdoing have been already been debated at length and do not warrant further discussion. Ferguson, however, stuck to his guns as the conservation went on.
Many in the establishment media continue, on a daily basis, discuss controversies surrounding the Republican White House. Allegations that the president’s campaign team colluded with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign have continued for well over a year.
Robert Mueller was appointed special counselor of the FBI investigation into the Trump presidential campaign in mid-May. His investigation has so far lasted over seven months — with no apparent end in sight. (For more from the author of “Conservative Pushes the Limits on CNN, Causes Don Lemon to Have a Meltdown, Cut to Commercial Break” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/1197319384_86e0ca12fe_z-1.jpg375500Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-12-31 23:57:532018-01-07 03:52:19Conservative Pushes the Limits on CNN, Causes Don Lemon to Have a Meltdown, Cut to Commercial Break
The nation’s leading source of information on U.S. charities faces mounting criticism for using a controversial “hate group” designation in listings for some well-known and broadly supported conservative nonprofits.
GuideStar, which calls itself a “neutral” aggregator of tax data on charities, recently incorporated “hate group” labels produced by the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center.
The decision by the tracker of nonprofits prompted 41 conservative leaders to protest the move in a letter provided exclusively to The Daily Signal. The letter, dated June 21, asks the website to drop the “hate group” labels put on 46 organizations. (Read the full letter below.)
GuideStar’s use of the “hate group” designation for certain organizations, many of them Christian, unfairly and inaccurately adopts the “aggressive political agenda” of Southern Poverty Law Center, the leaders write.
Among the organizations represented are the Family Research Council, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, the Immigration Reform Law Institute, the American College of Pediatricians, the National Task Force for Therapy Equality, the American Family Association, the London Center for Policy Research, and the Jewish Institute for Global Awareness.
In the letter to GuideStar President and CEO Jacob Harold, the conservative leaders write:
We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, write to express our strong disagreement with GuideStar’s newly implemented policy that labels 46 American organizations as ‘hate groups.’ Your designations are based on determinations made by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a hard-left activist organization. As such, SPLC’s aggressive political agenda pervades the construction of its ‘hate group’ listings.
A biography of Harold on GuideStar’s website describes him as a “social change strategist.” He is seen in this tweet participating in the Jan. 21 Women’s March in Washington, D.C., which opposed new President Donald Trump:
Prior to joining GuideStar, Harold worked for the Hewlett Foundation’s philanthropy program, as a “climate change campaigner” for Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace USA, and as an organizing director at Citizen Works.
Signers of the letter sound their concern that GuideStar, which calls itself a neutral public charity, is using the Southern Poverty Law Center’s much-contested language to flag “hate groups,” organizations that SPLC disagrees with.
“I think that what GuideStar is doing is another attack on conservative Christian organizations and individuals,” William G. “Jerry” Boykin, a retired Army general who is executive vice president of the Family Research Council, told The Daily Signal in an interview, adding:
We have seen the same thing from other places to include certain media outlets. GuideStar says that they are neutral, but they are anything but neutral. In fact, they are, I would say at this point, they are becoming an arm of the ultra-left.
Mat Staver, who also signed the letter and is the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a legal group focused on religious liberty, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview he detects purposeful motivation behind GuideStar’s flagging.
“The intent there obviously is to harm, I think, these organizations,” Staver said.
Foundations, corporations, and other institutions look at listings by such organizations as GuideStar when they determine where to make tax-exempt contributions. They are unlikely to donate money to any organization labeled as a hate group, the conservative leaders argue.
A GuideStar spokesperson told The Daily Signal in an email Wednesday that the website will change some of the language:
GuideStar draws information from thousands of distinct sources, each of them imperfect. In aggregate, those sources help us offer a multidimensional view of nonprofits. However, we recognize that the SPLC data is especially controversial. We are changing the text description of this data and reconsidering where and how we present it on our website.
The changes will appear within a few days, the spokesperson said.
Family Research Council’s Boykin said GuideStar has two options.
“I think their choices are either take this label [down] that you have put on these different organizations, all of which are conservative Christian organizations, or acknowledge that you are a politically active arm of the liberal progressive movement in America,” he said.
Staver said his organization, one of those flagged by GuideStar as a hate group, asked Harold to promptly remove that label.
“So, 41 organizations are joining together, we are asking GuideStar’s CEO to respond to me within a very quick turnaround time to reverse its course and cease this false and defamatory labeling that it is using on its website,” Staver told The Daily Signal, referring to the letter.
Among the signers is Edwin J. Feulner, founder and president of The Heritage Foundation, the parent organization of The Daily Signal. Two other fixtures of the conservative think tank, Heritage board member Edwin Meese III and Heritage Action CEO Michael Needham, also signed the letter. Heritage is not labeled a hate group by either SPLC or GuideStar.
Organizations such as the Family Research Council are well aware of the implications of the messaging that GuideStar is perpetrating, Staver said.
Floyd Corkins, the man convicted of a 2012 attempt to massacre employees at the Family Research Council, was inspired by SPLC’s description of the Christian pro-family research organization as a hate group, he noted.
In an interview with the FBI, Corkins said a list on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website motivated his attack. SPLC has acknowledged the connection.
The letter notes that James T. Hodgkinson, the man who police say tried to gun down Republican lawmakers last week, liked the Southern Poverty Law Center on Facebook.
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., was gravely wounded in the gunman’s attack June 14 during practice for a congressional baseball game just outside Washington in Alexandria, Virginia.
“Does it not concern you that within the past five years, the SPLC has been linked to gunmen who carried out two terrorist shootings in the D.C. area?” the letter to Harold says, adding:
With these points in mind, we respectfully request that GuideStar return to its prior, nonpolitical approach to evaluating nonprofit organizations. Please send your reply within one week of receipt of this letter.
(For more from the author of “Nonprofit Tracker Smears Dozens of Conservative Organizations as ‘Hate Groups'” please click HERE)
10. The Republican president tweets about the loss of his daughter’s department store clothing line, but tweets nothing about a state Supreme Court unanimously declaring itself above the First Amendment to the Constitution.
9. Almost no big names in the conservative movement/media call upon that same Republican president to address the issue altogether. Despite the fact evangelicals like Barronelle Stutzman are one of the main reasons there’s a Republican president in the White House in the first place.
8. One of your movement’s signature events decides to make a self-admitted moral reprobate — human click bait — its keynote speaker. Then when video comes to light showing him advocating for the disgusting practice of pederasty, the event’s head honcho doubles down to defend his awful decision. And only after a public outrage is the decision finally reversed, which means it wasn’t reversed on moral grounds but in response to a PR backlash. Begging the question: Why did the people running an event that Reagan once urged its attendees to “serve selflessly a vision of man with God,” invite such a reprobate in the first place?
7. The self-appointed gatekeepers of your movement determine the credibility of a Supreme Court nominee via Chevron and not Roe v. Wade.
6. The same conservative leaders who issued multi-page white papers warning about the danger of Obama’s executive order promoting the Rainbow Jihad, say virtually nothing in public when his Republican successor leaves it in place.
5. Most of the biggest megaphones in the movement spent more time cheering an unhinged press conference then urging Republicans to repeal Obamacare.
4. Your moral outrage is dialed up to 11 at fake news, but then it’s nothing but crickets when fake news provocateurs and discredited conspiracists representing your side get White House press credentials.
3. A headline beginning with the words “This will make Nancy Pelosi mad” is trending every day that ends in y.
2. You actually believe Trump shill Roger Stone was poisoned by Trump’s political opponents.
1. Most of your day is spent pointing out the hypocrisy of the other side. That they’re now supporting and saying things they criticized when their guy was in the White House. All the while neglecting the reverse is also true, and now many of you are doing the exact same thing. (For more from the author of “Top 10 Signs the Conservative Movement May Be in Trouble” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/1280px-Danger_sign.jpg9601280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-02-21 22:29:252017-02-21 22:29:25Top 10 Signs the Conservative Movement May Be in Trouble
Former and current Republican congressional lawmakers raised concern against reinstating the practice of earmarks during a discussion hosted by the largest conservative caucus in Congress on Tuesday.
“I’m astounded that you’re even having this conversation,” former Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said during the Republican Study Committee discussion. “If the Republicans really want to give up control of Congress, just [bring back earmarks]. I guarantee it’s going to happen if you do.”
Coburn called earmarks “the gateway drug to overspending,” and cautioned against restoring them.
Earmarks, which were banned under House rules in 2010, allow taxpayer money to be directed to special interests and projects through the budget.
The proposal to reinstate earmarks—led by Reps. John Culberson, R-Texas; Mike Rogers, R-Ala.; and Tom Rooney, R-Fla.—was set in motion just days after the 2016 election.
Jim DeMint, a former South Carolina senator who represented the state’s 4th Congressional District from 2005 to 2013 and who serves as the president of The Heritage Foundation, said that earmarks lead to a corrupted political system.
“You can hear all kinds of good excuses for earmarks, [like] ‘this is a good project,’’’ DeMint said. “For every good project, there are wasteful projects. It corrupts the system, we’ve had congressman go to jail, we’ve had congressmen use earmarks for their own special interests.”
Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., warned that reinstating earmarks would work against the mandate of voters to “drain the swamp.”
“When you hear ‘drain the swamp’ right now, just realize that was the rallying cry for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in 2006 when they took the majority, largely because of earmarks,” Flake said.
Flake added that the process of allocating earmarks takes away from the oversight responsibilities that committees in Congress hold.
“I think that the worst part [of earmarks], worse than the money spent through the actual earmarks themselves, is the time, effort, and resources that the appropriations committees in the House and the Senate spend just trying to divvy out earmarks,” Flake said.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said he is disheartened that Congress is raising this proposal again.
“I never thought I would have to be a part of getting the ‘earmark ban band’ back together,” Hensarling said.
Earmarks, Hensarling said, embody everything that is contrary to conservative values.
“[Earmarks] represent a victory of seniority over merit, they represented a victory of secrecy over transparency, they represented a victory of sweetheart deals over competitive bidding … they cause members to vote for spending bills they otherwise would not have voted for,” Hensarling said.
Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, the former chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said that achieving spending restraint will not be possible with earmarks in play.
“With the election of [President] Donald Trump, Americans made it clear that they want to ‘drain the swamp,’” Flores said. “Now, there are a lot of people around here that think the swamp is a hot tub, but it’s a swamp and it needs to be drained.”
Flores said that he was “surprised” that the subject of reinstating earmarks has even been raised.
Concerned about Congress’ current stance on earmarks, Flores urged listeners to voice their disapproval of reinstating the process.
“I have this sick feeling that there is more than half the conference that would vote for this if it came back. So we need to make sure that we have grassroots support … so we can make sure this does not come back,” Flores said.
Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., said bringing back earmarks would only contribute to the problematic public policies in Congress and harm its political climate.
DeSantis said it is a myth that Congress “needs earmarks to reclaim the power of the purse.”
“We forfeited the power of the purse by doing continuing resolutions and omnibus bills, and, if you introduce earmarks tomorrow … you will have even bigger and more grotesque omnibus bills,” he said.
Should earmarks return, DeSantis said that curbing executive overreach and reining in the national debt will be harder to accomplish.
“Earmarks facilitate federal overreach, spending on things that aren’t linked to the general welfare … the more you expand the spending power to subsidize anything possible under the sun, it’s much more difficult for us to get our fiscal house in order,” DeSantis said.
For Sen. Mike Lee., R-Utah, earmarks are a symbol of everything that Congress should avoid.
“When people talk about the fact that Congress needs to get back in charge of its own spending, I couldn’t agree more,” Lee said. “But that does not mean ‘Bring back earmarks.’”
Instead, Lee said Republicans would own the pork-barrel spending legacy, should earmarks be reinstated. (For more from the author of “Conservative Lawmakers Warn Congress Not to Reinstate Earmarks” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/7998339582_5870b70d50_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-02-01 23:18:172017-02-01 23:18:17Conservative Lawmakers Warn Congress Not to Reinstate Earmarks
In a recent episode of my podcast The Renegade Republican, I lamented the fact that conservatives and liberals have a difficult time communicating with one another.
During my time in electoral politics, I often left a conversation with a liberal voter scratching my head and wondering where I went wrong. Often, it appeared as if the liberal and I weren’t even having the same conversation.
This got me thinking: Maybe we weren’t having the same conversation. As I mentally rewound many of these conversations and evaluated them, it became clear that when it came to discussing specific topics, I was talking about one thing, and the liberal was talking about something else. Here are some examples of what I experienced:
1. Health care
When discussing health care, conservatives are typically referring to the actual care of people’s health and well-being. Conservatives associate the health care debate with health care outcomes. In other words, is our country a place where people can actually choose their doctor, be seen in a timely manner, acquire needed medications, and able to make critical decisions about their health — free of government interference?
But, this isn’t what most liberals are talking about when they are debating “health care.” Liberals are typically discussing “coverage,” not actual health care. And this is where the communication gap originates.
Today’s liberals aren’t as much concerned with health outcomes — access to doctors and hospitals or choice of doctor or hospital — as they are with government edicts ensuring “coverage.” In other words, as long as the law can be used to say, “You’re covered,” even if the health care coverage is more expensive, more restrictive, and more bureaucratic, liberals think the debate is over and are therefore uninterested in additional dialogue.
2. Education
When discussing education, conservatives are typically referring to educational outcomes. Conservatives associate the word “education” with the acquisition of cognitive skills. In other words, are our kids learning anything? But this isn’t what most liberals are talking about when they are debating “education.”
Unfortunately, liberals often talk about government spending. And while no credible conservative doubts that money must be expended to educate children, the amount spent is not the primary determinant of the quality of the learning experience. We can’t have a sensible conversation if we conservatives are talking about the learning experience and the outcomes it provides, while liberals focus primarily on the government dollars provided.
3. Economy
Conservatives refer to policies that will grow the economy. We understand that both the value of a dollar and the likelihood that it will be used in a manner that adds to our national prosperity increase when when the earner gets to keep that dollar and chooses how to spend it .
In other words, are we growing more prosperous or not? But this isn’t what liberals are talking about when they debate about the economy. Liberals talk about who has the money — not how we multiply the value of our money through growth. Their viewpoint is evident; simply analyze their speech.
Next time you’re engaged in a debate with a liberal friend, count how many times he uses the terms “income inequality” or “income distribution” in comparison with the terms “economic freedom” or “free market.”
Conservatives avoid the term “income distribution” because income is not distributed; it is earned. And conservatives avoid the term “income inequality” because we are genuinely focused on how to make everyone more prosperous.
By the way, if you’re a liberal shaking your head while reading this, then you are proving my point. Your refusal to believe that conservatives care about everyone’s economic prosperity, educational outcomes, and health is prima facie evidence that the communications gap among liberals and conservatives is real. (For more from the author of “Why Liberals and Conservatives Can’t Communicate” please click HERE)
A disgruntled liberal who says “discrimination” is wrong says she’ll discriminate against America’s most prominent immigrant because of her choice of husband:
A fashion designer whose styles have been sported by Michelle Obama is boycotting dressing Melania Trump, saying she encourages “my fellow designers to do the same” when it comes to outfitting the next first lady.
“As one who celebrates and strives for diversity, individual freedom and respect for all lifestyles, I will not participate in dressing or associating in any way with the next First Lady,” Sophie Theallet wrote in a letter this week.
“The rhetoric of racism, sexism, and xenophobia unleashed by her husband’s presidential campaign are incompatible with the shared values we live by,” Theallet wrote about President-elect Donald Trump.
“I encourage my fellow designers to do the same,” she continued.
“I am well aware it is not wise to get involved in politics,” the fashion maven wrote. “That said, as a family-owned company, our bottom line is not just about money. We value our artistic freedom and always humbly seek to contribute to a more humane, conscious and ethical way to create in this world.”
For years, conservatives have been accused of bigotry, hatred and more for not celebrating the issue of the day propagated by liberals. Opposing abortion means we hate women, stopping illegal immigration means we think brown-skinned people are sub-human and upholding the rule of law in cities means we want to keep blacks down (even though America’s largest cities have long been run by Democrats).
The two new causes célèbres have been non-discrimination laws that consist of state-sanctioned attacks on the beliefs of Christians who may not want to participate in, or otherwise endorse, the LGBT agenda. A lawsuit in Washington State based around such a law could cause a 72-year old florist to lose everything she owns because of her beliefs about marriage, and priests in Massachusetts could be jailed for using biologically accurate pronouns.
Will liberals defend Melania Trump from this hypocrisy? After all, they stood up for Hillary Clinton when she enabled her husband’s abuse of women. All Melania did was marry Donald Trump. (For more from the author of “Liberal Hypocrisy: Apparently Non-Discrimination Only Applies to Conservatives” please click HERE)
