Posts

We Are Fighting Demons More Than Democrats

/0 Comments/in , , /by

I believe in political involvement. I believe in taking responsibility for our world. I believe in rolling up our sleeves and being agents of positive change. But I also believe that our greatest battle is a spiritual battle — not a political or even a social battle. We do our country a disservice when we neglect the spiritual battle at hand.

Too Much Trust in Men

Paul explained to the believers in Ephesus that “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12).

What? Organized cosmic powers of darkness? Demonic forces arrayed in heavenly places? We’re supposed to take this stuff seriously? Absolutely. We ignore the spiritual realm to the peril of our own souls. That’s why Paul exhorted his readers to “take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm” (Eph. 6:12-13). We are in a spiritual war.

Again, I’m not downplaying earthly realities one bit.

I’m not saying that we’re not fully responsible for what we do. We are. We can’t say, “The devil made me do it.” I’m not saying that some Democratic policies are not downright evil or that some Republicans are not downright corrupt or that some of our government’s choices are not downright dangerous. And I’m absolutely not saying that instead of voting and petitioning and speaking up and taking stands we should just stay home and pray.

But I am saying that we have seriously neglected prayer. We have focused way too much on natural things and not nearly enough on spiritual things. We — speaking for many Christian conservatives — have put too much trust in the Republican Party and, for some, even in President Trump. Our hope must be in the Lord. Only He can bring about the changes our nation so desperately needs.

A Common Enemy

Let’s remember that we have a common enemy, the devil, also known as Satan. He hates blacks and whites alike. He wants to destroy men and women alike. He despises gays and straights alike. As Jesus taught, “He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (Jn. 8:44).

He wants to destroy America (along with every other nation on the planet). And he cannot be defeated in the ballot box.

We must do war against Satan and his minions, and we do it first through devoted prayer. Such prayer ascends to the throne of God and results in extraordinary divine intervention. We also do it by sharing our faith with others, preaching the gospel without compromise or apology, calling a lost world to turn to Jesus and be transformed. (Yes, I really believe all this. Do you?)

And we do it by living out our faith — in our personal lives, in our families, in our church communities — without hypocrisy and without compromise. That’s how America will be shaken. Nothing short of a great awakening will stop (or even slow) our nation’s headlong race to destruction.

Do we really think that the Supreme Court can stem the tide? That Congress can do it? That the president can do it? That passing a specific bill or enacting a certain law will reverse our course?

Again, we should get involved in politics. What our political and judicial leaders do is of great importance. But let’s not kid ourselves. There’s only so much these elected (and unelected) officials can do. The real changes that need to occur in our country can only occur by the Lord, working with His people. Likewise, our national wounds and divisions are too deep for a mere human cure. We need the Great Physician.

Take the Bible Seriously

When I speak like this, I know that some will incorrectly hear ominous talk of “dominionism,” as if I’m calling for some type of forceful, Christian takeover of society. That’s the last thing on my mind.

What I’m calling for is simple and clear. It is for followers of Jesus to seek God’s face in prayer with a deep sense of urgency, asking Him to have mercy on our nation.

It is for us to humble ourselves before Him in deep repentance for our own sins and failings.

It is for us to renew our commitment to the Great Commission and to focus once again on winning the lost and making disciples.

It is for us to shine like lights in dark places, confront evil and injustice, help the poor and the hurting, make a tangible difference for good wherever God has placed us.

It is for us to live in the light of eternity, to recognize that what we do (or don’t do) in our time on earth will matter in both this world and the world to come.

In short, it is for us to take the Bible seriously. That means submitting to God, resisting the devil, and pushing back the forces of darkness by the power of the gospel.

Not only can it be done. With God’s gracious help, it must be done.

Are you with me? (For more from the author of “We Are Fighting Demons More Than Democrats” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Democrat Governor Wants to Cut Taxpayer Funding for Public Broadcasting to Zero

/0 Comments/in , /by

At a time when President Donald Trump’s administration is reportedly considering cuts to public broadcasting, one Democrat governor already has proposed to eliminate taxpayers’ subsidies for his state’s TV and radio affiliates.

West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice’s budget proposal would cut state funding for the West Virginia Public Broadcasting, or WVPB, from $4.6 million all the way down to zero.

Justice’s fiscal year 2018 budget proposal is aimed at closing a $500 million revenue shortfall. It also includes about $450 million in new tax hikes.

“You’re faced with a $500 million hole in the bucket,” Justice told the state Legislature earlier this month. “And the next year is a $700 million hole in the bucket … We’ve got an 18 carat dog’s mess, don’t we? We do. I didn’t create the dog’s mess. I have inherited the dog’s mess. And I am telling you, you have to have real direction and real ideas and real cooperation together to be able to get out of this.”

Justice went on to broadly talk about making spending cuts and tax hikes painless, but didn’t specifically address public broadcasting during his State of the State address.

Justice’s spokesman Grant Herring didn’t return multiple phone calls and emails from The Daily Signal on Wednesday.

WVPB CEO Scott Finn referred The Daily Signal to Herring for all questions.

The state’s portion of the funding makes up almost half of the WVPB’s $10 million budget, according to Friends of West Virginia Public Broadcasting and the West Virginia Public Broadcasting Foundation, which advocate on behalf of and raise private money for the state’s public broadcasting.

A statement from the organizations’ chairs read, “such a drastic and immediate cut threatens the very existence of our state’s PBS and NPR stations.”

“This state cut would translate into layoffs of up to 75 percent of our staff, which would endanger our ability to operate,” read the statement from Friends of WVPB Chairwoman Susan C. Hogan and WVPB Foundation Chairman Ted Armbrecht.

About $4.2 million of the $4.6 million covers the salaries and benefits for WVPB’s 71 employees, according to the Charleston Gazette-Mail.

Hogan told The Daily Signal the organization has hired a lobbyist and a marketing director to galvanize public support.

“Alternative ways [for WVPB] to exist would be as a private nonprofit. The other is to become part of a university,” Hogan told The Daily Signal. “The former would take years to get to that point. The latter would take intense negotiation.”

The state Legislature is holding hearings and drafting its own budget proposal, said Jared Hunt, spokesman for West Virginia House Speaker Tim Armstead, a Republican. For now, the speaker doesn’t have a specific position on public broadcasting. But, it’s ultimately up to the governor, Hunt said.

“Even if we do restore the funding, the governor does have line-item veto power and if he wanted to, he could take that funding back out,” Hunt told The Daily Signal. “If he wanted to take that funding back out in the final version of the budget bill, that is his prerogative. A lot will depend on what the governor’s perspective is at the time.”

Taxpayers, whether at the state or federal level, shouldn’t have to fund what is heavily liberal-leaning programming, said Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“Whether it’s state or federal, all taxpayers shouldn’t be expected to fund such marked bias,” Gonzalez told The Daily Signal. “They have been criticized for this for years, and their only defense is ‘No, we’re not [biased].’”

Trump met Wednesday with his budget team at the White House, as the president plans to present a budget proposal in the near future. News reports say he intends to privatize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the agency that oversees the TV network, Public Broadcasting System, as well as National Public Radio.

U.S. taxpayers spend $445 million annually on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

In brief remarks from the White House, Trump didn’t address any specific detail other than cutting waste and getting spending under control. Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin sat on each side of the president, while other top advisers were also in the Roosevelt Room with him.

“The finances of this country are a mess but we’re going to clean that up,” Trump said. “I will be holding everybody accountable for that.”

Gonzalez thinks PBS and NPR could do well as private nonprofits.

“It is unfair and unwise to fund any media organization that ignores the philosophy and arguments of one-half of the country,” Gonzalez added. “I think their membership model for raising money works. I think they would survive and thrive on their own.”

Hogan contends that public broadcasting is essential for the America.

“[The Corporation for Public Broadcasting] is the spirit and soul of America,” Hogan said. “You tell me a cable station that does what PBS does.” (For more from the author of “Democrat Governor Wants to Cut Taxpayer Funding for Public Broadcasting to Zero” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

House Democrat Aides Got $100K From Mysterious Iraqi While Overseeing Hill IT

/0 Comments/in , /by

Rogue congressional staffers took $100,000 from an Iraqi politician while they had administrator-level access to the House of Representatives’ computer network, according to court documents examined by The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group.

The money was a loan from Dr. Ali al-Attar, an Iraqi political figure, and was funneled through a company with “impossible”-to-decipher financial transactions that the congressional information technology staffers controlled.

Imran Awan, ringleader of the group that includes his brothers Abid and Jamal, has provided IT services since 2005 for Florida Democrat Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former Democratic National Committee chairwoman. The brothers are from Pakistan.

The trio also worked for dozens of other House Democrats, including members of the intelligence, foreign affairs, and homeland security committees. Those positions likely gave them access to congressional emails and other sensitive documents.

The brothers, whose access to House IT networks has been terminated, are under criminal investigation by the U.S. Capitol Police. (Read more from “House Democrat Aides Got $100K From Mysterious Iraqi While Overseeing Hill IT” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Labor Secretary’s Bid to Lead Democrats Comes Under Legal Scrutiny

/0 Comments/in , /by

Labor Secretary Tom Perez is campaigning actively to become the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee, prompting a watchdog group to investigate whether he has violated a law prohibiting federal government employees from engaging in partisan politics while on the job.

Two other Cabinet-level department heads in the Obama administration previously were found to have broken the law, called the Hatch Act.

The Hatch Act, passed in 1939, limits political activities by federal employees to ensure they do their taxpayer-funded work in a nonpartisan way and protects employees from partisan retaliation by a supervisor.

Breaking this law is an administrative violation, not a criminal act, with discipline ranging from a warning to removal.

Labor Department spokeswoman Mattie M. Zazueta said Perez was careful not to violate the law.

“Before deciding to run for DNC chair, Secretary Perez sought counsel from [the Labor Department’s] counsel for ethics, who informed him that it would be permissible for him to run while still serving as secretary,” Zazueta told The Daily Signal. Robert M. Sadler is the department’s counsel for ethics.

Zazueta added:

The Hatch Act allows federal employees to be a candidate for and serve as an officer in a political party. Secretary Perez is always extremely careful to follow the law and all rules associated with political activity, and takes the appropriate measures to keep any political activity separate from his official duties. He will continue to do so in this situation.

But Cause of Action Institute, a conservative government watchdog group, last week filed a Freedom of Information Act request asking for all communications by Perez with voting members of the the party organization, including emails, text messages, and voicemails.

“The law is clear: Public officials paid by taxpayers cannot use their position to engage in political activities,” Henry Kerner, assistant vice president of Cause of Action Institute, said in a public statement. “The Obama administration’s unprecedented history of Hatch Act violations threatens to undermine this important protection. Americans have a right to know if [Secretary] Perez used taxpayer-funded resources to further his own political campaign.”

Running for office within a party structure possibly wouldn’t be a violation of the Hatch Act, but soliciting support for a campaign could be, according to rules from the Office of Special Counsel, an independent government agency that investigates possible Hatch Act violations.

Cabinet secretaries officially are always on the clock. So, mixing politics with what is not supposed to be political would constitute a violation.

Politico reported that Perez “emailed all neutral and supportive party chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors” and asked the Democrat activists to join him on a conference call.

The portion of the Office of Special Counsel website devoted to “frequently asked questions” on the Hatch Act says: “A federal employee cannot send or forward a partisan political email from either his government email account or his personal email account (even using a personal device) while at work.”

The Democratic National Committee will select a leader in February. Perez is challenging Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn.

Perez is mounting something of a grassroots campaign, while Ellison has the backing of prominent Democrats such as the Senate’s new top Democrat, Charles Schumer of New York.

In July, the Office of Special Counsel found that Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro violated the Hatch Act by endorsing Hillary Clinton for president during an interview with Yahoo News in HUD’s TV studio about housing policy.

President Barack Obama opted not to take disciplinary action against Castro.

The Office of Special Counsel earlier determined that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius violated the Hatch Act during the 2012 presidential race when she told a major LGBT advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign, during a speech in North Carolina that it was “hugely important” to re-elect Obama.

Obama took no action against Sebelius, who resigned in April 2014.

While on the job, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis raised money for Obama’s re-election campaign. However, by the time audio recordings about her fundraising surfaced, Solis already had resigned from the Cabinet position.

The Hatch Act generally applies to merit-based civil service employees, who may be disciplined by their supervisor with a warning, a formal reprimand, administrative leave, and even termination, Office of Special Counsel spokesman Nick Schwellenbach told The Daily Signal.

If a question arises about a presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate, the Office of Special Counsel sends its finding to the president, who determines whether discipline is warranted. (For more from the author of “Labor Secretary’s Bid to Lead Democrats Comes Under Legal Scrutiny” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Democrats Have De Facto Control of the Senate Unless Conservatives Step Up

/0 Comments/in , /by

Conservatives in the Senate are an endangered species. With Jeff Sessions vacating his seat, there will be a huge void in the House of Lords, which has fewer than 15 conservatives — and that is being charitable. After failing to elect a single, new conservative to the Senate this year, it is vital that the grassroots mobilize for 2018 and to fill any vacancies that might arise with cabinet picks.

The Senate is worse than you think. There is far from a 52-48 conservative majority.

Traditionally, it has been Senate Republicans who have sand-bagged every opportunity conservatives created in pursuit of limited government reforms. Senate RINOs, led by Bob Dole, turned the Senate into a graveyard for the Contract with America reforms pushed by Newt Gingrich and House Republicans, as was the case when Republicans controlled the Senate during the Reagan administration. They also dogged President Bush during the time when Republicans controlled all three branches, even on the conservative initiatives he proposed. If conservatives don’t think of a new game plan and prepare to win more primaries, here is what is confronting us in the House of Lords.

A Senate leadership that sides with Democrats on critical issues

As much as conservatives complain about House Republicans, they look like the Founding Fathers compared with their Senate counterparts. For a cursory glance of what our policies will be confronted with in the Senate, take a look at this chart of Senate leaders and likely chairmen of key policymaking committees for the upcoming session.

senate-scorecard

I already analyzed Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, John McCain, and Thad Cochran before the election in my piece on the four fossils that are using the Senate as a retirement home. But take a look at some of the other scores here.

Lamar Alexander will oversee any critical reforms on health care and education, yet he has an astounding 15% Liberty Score®, lower than some Democrats! Lamar has already signaled that he doesn’t want to repeal fully the costly Obamacare coverage mandates that are solely responsible for the skyrocketing premiums.

What about energy? We have Lisa Murkowski as the quarterback on all issues pertaining to energy. She has a 20% Liberty Score® and has bought into the global warming agenda.

What about military and foreign policy? Bob Corker and John McCain will continue to chair the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees, respectively. They have been a part of the problem in misdirection on foreign policy for years.

Even those with better liberty scores, such as Mike Crapo, are problematic. Despite his slightly better voting record than current banking chair Richard Shelby, Crapo is actually a step down on this issue. While serving as one of the top members on the Senate Banking Committee for years, Crapo has been reluctant to phase out federal involvement in housing policy and is regarded as only a lukewarm opponent of the Dodd-Frank regulations, much less so than Shelby.

What about spending cuts? Good luck getting those past appropriations chairman Cochran, who is indistinguishable from a Democrat in his legacy of federal largesse.

Transportation and infrastructure? This is an issue for which conservatives will have to battle the administration in order to devolve spending to the states instead of expanding it on a federal level. Some might be heartened that James Inhofe, a big proponent of federal control of transportation, is termed out as chairman of the committee. But his likely successor, John Barrasso is just as bad.

Reforming food stamps and farm subsidies? Over the dead body of big-spender, Pat Roberts.

For conservatives looking for change in these critical spheres of policy, wherever they turn they will meet stiff resistance. Each one of these chairmen either fundamentally don’t share our values on the issues within their respective jurisdictions or they value working with the Left more than with conservatives.

The landscape for 2018

The 2018 Senate map is a dream landscape for Republicans. They will defend only eight seats, while Democrats must defend 25. Furthermore, almost all of the GOP incumbents are in solid Republican states — with Dean Heller (RINO-Nev) being the only legitimately vulnerable seat. On the other hand, Democrats have an endless number of potential vulnerabilities.

Seven states should be vulnerable right off the bat either due to Trump carrying those states by a substantial margin or because of the dynamics of state politics: Indiana (Joe Donnelly), North Dakota (Heidi Heitkamp), Missouri (Claire McCaskill), West Virginia (Joe Manchin), Montana (Jon Tester), Ohio (Sherrod Brown), and Florida (Bill Nelson).

Then there are the three traditionally blue-leaning states that Trump was able to narrowly win and are exceedingly more red during mid-term elections: Pennsylvania (Bob Casey), Michigan (Debbie Stabenow), and Wisconsin (Tammy Baldwin). In addition, there are states like Minnesota (Amy Klobuchar) and Maine (Angus King), where Trump lost narrowly but could easily shift in a midterm with lower Democrat base turnout.

In total, Republicans could easily make a run at a 60-seat super-majority in the Senate. But what’s the point of a GOP super-majority if we continue the trajectory of automatically nominating Mitch McConnell yes-men for those races? Republicans could win 70-80 seats in the Senate and it will never be enough because we will continue filling those seats with Democrat-lite politicians. The party establishment is already trying to recruit moderate House candidates to challenge these vulnerable Democrats. Achieving a 60-seat GOP majority with just 15 conservatives in the Senate will get us nowhere.

In addition, it would be a shame for conservatives to allow RINOs such as Jeff Flake, Roger Wicker, Bob Corker, and Orrin Hatch (assuming he breaks his pledge and runs again) to get a free pass in their primaries. Ultimately, I believe we need to push state parties and legislatures to change election law and transform Senate and House primaries into representative conventions to give the grassroots an equal footing against the K Street interests. But until that is accomplished, conservatives must begin recruiting candidates now.

During the Constitutional Convention, in explaining the unique role of the Senate, James Madison predicted that the upper chamber would serve as a “necessary fence” against the “fickleness and passion” of the House of Representatives. That was at a time when they liked the government they had conceived and wanted to prevent demagogues from playing on people’s impetuous impulses to alter the government they created.

After 100 years of post-constitutionalism, however, our government as it was originally adopted is unrecognizable. The Senate, therefore, is now being used as a fence against the requisite passion necessary to restore our republic. We need more men of passion, lest the “Senate saucer” only be used to cool conservative tea and insulate the steaming pile of progressive bile we seek to remove. (For more from the author of “Why Democrats Have De Facto Control of the Senate Unless Conservatives Step Up” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Democrats Looking for Answers After Devastating Election

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hours after the arrest of 17 progressive protesters at a sit-in at New York Sen. Charles “Chuck” Schumer’s office, President Barack Obama said Democrats will be doing some healthy reflection after the pounding the party took in last week’s national election.

The progressive wing of the Democratic party, which backed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential primary challenge to eventual nominee Hillary Clinton, wants to double down on its agenda. It blames Clinton’s supposed centrist stance and close ties to Wall Street for the loss to Republican Donald Trump on Nov. 8.

Some of this will play out in the coming months in the competition to be the next Democratic National Committee chairman.

The President and Protesters

“When your team loses, everybody gets deflated and it’s hard and it’s challenging and so I think it’s a healthy thing for the Democratic Party to go through some reflection,” Obama, who as president is the outgoing titular leader of his party, said in a press conference Monday. “I think it’s important for me not to be big-footing that conversation. I think we want to see new voices and new ideas emerge.”

Obama said the Democratic Party can’t waiver from its core beliefs.

“I believe that we have better ideas, but I also believe that good ideas don’t matter if people don’t hear them and one of the issues that Democrats have to be clear on is that, given population distribution across the country, we have to compete everywhere,” Obama said.

Protesters outside likely Senate Democratic leader Schumer’s office had a different view than Obama.

The 45 millennial activists, calling themselves “All of Us 2016,” made two demands: that Democrats vow to never negotiate with President-elect Trump and that Schumer step aside from his designated role and endorse Sanders to be the party’s Senate leader.

“The Democrats cannot negotiate with a racist, fascist President Trump, they must filibuster all day and all night to stop his racist, fascist agenda,” All of Us co-founder Waleed Shahid, 25, of Brooklyn, told The Daily Signal. “It was negotiation that led to calling African-Americans three-fifths of a citizen.”

The protesters sang, “We stand for our future and together we stand strong.” They also chanted, “Our future is on the line, Chuck Schumer, grow a spine.”

“Democrats lost because they couldn’t tell the truth. Schumer is entirely funded by Wall Street,” Shahid said, adding it would have turned out different if Sanders had been the Democratic nominee. “Sanders inspired the American people.”

Various protesters were arrested in groups of one and two, and taken away. This is revealing about Schumer, said Anna Bonomo, 26, of Hermitage, Pennsylvania.

“Charles Schumer decided to have almost 20 millennials arrested instead of meeting with us and talking with us,” Bonomo told The Daily Signal. “I think that just goes to prove that Wall Street Democrats like him are not here for the people they claim to represent.”

Schumer’s office did not respond to inquiries from The Daily Signal.

The Democratic National Committee did not respond to The Daily Signal’s questions about the state of the party. The DNC chair’s leadership role will be elevated with Republicans holding the White House and Congress.

Electing the Next Chairman

Interim DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile was shouted down last week by a DNC staffer, who blamed the party’s establishment for Trump’s victory and warned of pending doom from climate change, The Huffington Post reported. The DNC staffer told Brazile:

Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this? You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself. You are part of the problem. You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.

DNC members will choose a successor to Brazile in February.

Both Schumer and Sanders have endorsed Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, to be the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee, as has outgoing Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

But securing the nomination won’t be easy for Ellison, the first Muslim in Congress.

Competition for Leadership

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who chaired the DNC from 2005 through 2009 when the party retook Congress and the White House, plans to run for the job again. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who ran unsuccessfully for president, has said he’s interested in the job.

Others possibilities are reportedly Labor Secretary Thomas Perez and New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Raymond Buckley.

In addition to Trump’s surprising win over Clinton, the Nov. 8 election also saw the GOP hold the House and Senate and make gains among governorships and state legislatures. Trump even won traditionally blue states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

Sanders scolded the Democratic Party in a tweet Monday morning, though he didn’t address the protest group advocating his elevation to Senate Democratic leader.

“I come from the white working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people where I came from,” Sanders tweeted.

He later tweeted: “The Democratic Party can no longer be led by the liberal elite. We have to stand up to Wall Street and the greed of corporate America.”

Politico reported that big Democratic donors met with billionaire financier George Soros at the District of Columbia’s elite Mandarin Oriental hotel for a closed-door conference sponsored by the Democracy Alliance, a progressive activist organization. Soros spent millions trying to get Clinton elected. Ellison attended the meeting spanning Sunday through Monday.

Others attending the conference were House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Soros’ Democracy Alliance has contributed more than $500 million to get Democrats elected and on liberal groups since 2005. (For more from the author of “Democrats Looking for Answers After Devastating Election” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Leaked Emails Indicate Democrats Cozy With NBC News’ Chuck Todd

/0 Comments/in , /by

NBC News political correspondent and Meet The Press host Chuck Todd has come under fire for emails he reportedly received from the Democratic National Committee’s Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Wikileaks released the alleged hacked email on Friday.

In it, Schultz writes Todd to discuss a news story by Morning Joe’s Mika Brezinski whereby Brezinski called on Schultz to resign over perceived unfair treatment of Bernie Sanders by Schultz and the DNC.

Schultz titled her email to Todd in the subject line which read, “Chuck, this must stop.”

The head of the DNC voicing outrage over an unflattering news story, and calling Todd by his first name was all critics needed to connect their own dots and come to the conclusion the NBC anchorman was in bed with the DNC and Hillary Clinton. And they took their concerns over the relationship to social media.

Worse yet, the email seems to suggest the DNC employed pressure on the press to censor future news stories which would target the DNC, and the chairwoman specifically.

“Chuck. See below. I would like to discuss this with you today. Can you reach out to Luis (Miranda) to schedule a call? Thanks,” Wasserman wrote Todd on May 18.

And in a more demanding tone, Schultz wrote Luis regarding the news story by Brezinski, “This is the LAST straw. […] This is outrageous. She needs to apologize.”

Todd responded to the criticism, reportedly telling Mediate, “I think it’s clear what it was. Someone complaining about coverage…something that happens daily from every campaign we interact with.”

And in a tweet, Todd responded…

Miranda then passed along his boss’ concerns to Todd and requested the information be sent to the Morning Joe staff. Miranda wrote that Wasserman “talked in very positive terms about both of our candidates,” adding, “No one wrote or rewrote any rules to help or hurt any specific candidate, these are the Party rules.”

At issue was the use of superdelegates pledged to Clinton before the Democratic primaries began. (For more from the author of “Leaked Emails Indicate Democrats Cozy With NBC News’ Chuck Todd” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: In Chaotic Scene, Democrats Chant ‘Shame’ on House Floor After Switched Votes

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Kate Irby. The floor of the U.S. House of Representatives descended into brief chaos Thursday morning following the defeat of an amendment on religious freedom.

Republicans switched their votes from yea to nay after the clock ran out on time to vote, and it’s unclear why the votes were allowed to switch. If the amendment had been declared approved or defeated right after the clock ran out, it would’ve been approved by a vote of 217-206.

The amendment, proposed by Rep. Sean Maloney (D-NY), would have prohibited the use of federal funds to enforce a provision that was part of the Defense Authorization Act, passed by the House Wednesday night . . .

When the clock ran out, votes stood at 217-206, with 35 Republicans joining Democrats to approve the amendment. But then one by one, five Republicans switched their votes to nay.

People started booing, chanting “shame” and saying various other things such as, “Make the order,” “votes are done,” and “let’s go!” Making the order refers to proclaiming the amendment defeated or approved, based on the current votes. (Read more from “In Chaotic Scene, Democrats Chant ‘Shame’ on House Floor After Switched Votes” HERE)

_____________________________________

Here’s What the Failed Amendment Was All About

By Cristina Marcos and Mike Lillis. The failed amendment would have effectively nullified a provision in the defense authorization that the House passed late Wednesday night. The language embedded in the defense bill states that religious corporations, associations and institutions that receive federal contracts can’t be discriminated against on the basis of religion.

Democrats warn that such a provision could potentially allow discrimination against the LGBT community in the name of religious freedom. Maloney’s amendment specifically would prohibit funds to implement contracts with any company that doesn’t comply with President Obama’s executive orderbanning federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers. (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Democrats Must Lie in the Politicized Judiciary Bed They Made

/2 Comments/in , /by

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.”

So said Sen. Ted Kennedy on the Senate floor on June 23, 1987, just 45 minutes after Robert Bork was nominated by President Reagan to replace the retiring Justice Lewis Powell.

Our Founders envisioned the judiciary as the weakest branch of government in terms of influencing the political direction of the country. After all, in a democratic republic, it’s the elected representatives through the principles of federalism who must decide the critical societal questions of the time. Judges are not elected precisely because they were to have “neither force nor will” in directing our society, rather they were to interpret and apply the statutes as passed by Congress.

Even those Founders who believed the courts had the power of judicial review to strike down statutes also believed the courts were to exercise that power only on rare occasions and only when laws flagrantly violated the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution at the time it was adopted. And even in those instances, the court was never regarded as the universally binding “law of the land”; rather all three branches of government had co-equal authority in guarding the constitutional boundaries. After all, if the judiciary was to be the final arbiter of the Constitution, how could it have been said that it would be the weakest branch of government and not the most powerful?

Yet, throughout the 20th century, and crystalizing during the Warren-era, Democrats used the court system as the primary means of achieving social transformation, rewriting the Constitution, and redefining fundamental rights. When Reagan finally made a concerted effort to stop this undemocratic transformation by nominating a man who merely respected the role of the judiciary as our founders envisioned, Democrats viciously smeared his Supreme Court nominee, inventing a new term in the English language, “Borking.” Four years later, Democrats savaged Clarence Thomas, the first Republican African American Supreme Court nominee, with the worst personal attacks imaginable, almost derailing his confirmation.

Democrats had become too cowardly to work the democratic process in pursuit of their goals, so they sought to constitutionalize their political agenda through the unelected branch of government, out of the reach of the people. As such, they only nominated those who would supplant the Constitution for the Democratic Party platform and blocked any Republican nominee who would uphold the original vision of the court and the Constitution. Thus, within a few decades, the court had become the most consequential branch of government. Elections only mattered to the extent that they enabled the victor to change the orientation of the court. This is the bed the Democrats have made.

Yet, despite the Democratic politicization of the court and the confirmation process, Republicans did not return the favor. They dutifully confirmed the first Democrat appointees in years—Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — with almost unanimous support. This, despite the fact that Ginsburg and Breyer were every bit as post-constitutional as Bork and Thomas were originalists.

This imbalance in approaches between the parties created a dynamic in which every Democrat-appointee was a radical liberal who promoted their agenda on the court. Whereas a number of Republican nominees — from Kennedy and Souter to Chief Justice Roberts–often side with the post-constitutionalists. Thus, even with Scalia on the court in his full glory, the Left still had a 5-4 majority to remake marriage — the building block of our civilization. And even the remaining slam dunk issues, such as gun rights, hang by a bare 5-4 constitutional thread.

Now with Scalia’s untimely death, we’ve come full circle and conservatives will no longer roll over and allow Democrats to wage one-sided judicial warfare. With Republicans in full control of the Senate, Democrats will be forced to lie in the bed they made for over half a century on the court and for three decades during the confirmation process.

If Democrats want to return the court to its original role when it wasn’t the final arbiter of social transformation, then let’s shake on it, strip the courts of jurisdiction, and confirm Obama’s nominee. As Justice Scalia always taught, when you believe strongly in a policy change, “persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.”

Now that Democrats have transmogrified the court into a super legislature, let the next election determine the outcome of the Supreme Court, as it does every policy-making body. (For more from the author of “Democrats Must Lie in the Politicized Judiciary Bed They Made” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Many Democrats Do You Suppose Would Switch Sides and Vote for Donald Trump? Poll Reveals the Startling Numbers

/9 Comments/in , /by

Nearly one in five Democrats — almost 20 percent — said they would switch sides and vote for Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, according to a new poll.

And even though the poll shows 14 percent of Republicans say they would vote for Hillary Clinton, a much greater percentage of Democratic voters say they’re “100 percent sure” of going for Trump than their Republican counterparts.

U.S. News & World Report outlined the survey by Washington-based Mercury Analytics, which was partly an online questionnaire and partly a first-blush response to Trump’s first big campaign ad — and it was administered to 916 self-proclaimed “likely voters” mostly on Wednesday and Thursday with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. (Read more from “How Many Democrats Do You Suppose Would Switch Sides and Vote for Donald Trump? Poll Reveals the Numbers” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.