Ken Miller Reacts To Evan McMullin’s Liberal Issues Positions
McMullin is getting some traction in Utah where Hillary and Trump are neck and neck. Conservative voters are desperate for someone to vote for but they are fools to vote for the bald former CIA spy.
Ken Miller explains why…
By Ken Miller on Facebook
One of our members recommended that people check out Evan McMullin, an independent candidate for president. I’ve just finished reading all his Issues tabs. I have not yet done personal background on McMullin and don’t intend to. The reason will soon become apparent.
His extensive Issues tab addresses probably every issue you could want to hear about. He concisely presents major failings of Hillary Clinton and Trump in opposition to his own, so you know the differences. He is extremely good on the Second Amendment and taking care of veterans. VERY good.
I had hoped to be able to give at worst a mild thumbs-down, but I consider McMullin completely unacceptable.
Those who read, bear in mind that I am deeply cynical. If a politician does not make a blunt, unconditional commitment at least on make-or-break issues, not only will I not give him the benefit of the doubt, I will assume the worst. But others may still have some optimism left.
McMullin has a plan for everything and many of his plans involve using complex, expensive programs to fix what other complex, expensive programs caused. He compensates for government overreach in some areas by overreaching in other areas. He compensates for understanding the root causes of some problems by acting as if he knows nothing of the reality of other problems. Or maybe he’s a Democrat.
McMullin in quotes, Ken Miller in brackets.
#1 dealbreaker for me:
“Our immigration system must secure our borders and enforce our laws … The country we love was built by immigrants. Yet while we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. We must preserve our sovereignty, our security, and the rule of law … Nor should ‘sanctuary cities’ be able to refuse cooperation with the federal enforcement efforts.”
[Sounds good, BUT then…]
“The path to reform begins with securing our borders. Once they are secured, there should be a process of earned legalization for the illegal immigrants who are already here. There is simply no efficient way to deport 11 million individuals; doing so would break apart families and likely cost $100 billion. Furthermore, legalization is not amnesty.”
[Where have I heard this before? At a Democrat convention maybe?]
“There should be a robust debate about immigration, but there should be no place for the kind of hateful and divisive rhetoric frequently on display in this campaign.”
[How noble. The nobility just drips off him. “Robust debate” – that’s code for, “I have to posture for the bitter clingers, but I’m with you democrats all the way!”]
“The first step toward earning legal status is for all those who are here illegally to come forward and register themselves. Next they would pay an application fee and a fine, undergo a background check, and demonstrate competence in English.”
[Who believes they’re going to do that? Especially but not only because the next thing he says is – ]
“If they do those things, they would get a temporary work and residence permit, but would not be eligible for welfare or entitlement programs. If they obey the law and pay their taxes for several years, they could apply for permanent residency.”
[Nope. they’ll just riot and protest and shout “Raaacist!” and file lawsuits until the weaklings and their collaborators give them all they want.]
[McMullin has the arrogance to follow that with this statement, because us peasants are too stupid to add one and one and get two- ]
“This is not amnesty; amnesty is when lawbreakers get something for nothing.”
#2 dealbreaker for me:
“There is an urgent need to restore the bonds of trust between law enforcement officers and the communities they are sworn to protect, especially African-American communities … we must ensure respect for every citizen’s right to fair and equitable treatment under the law. The time has also come to reform our courts and prisons, so that we rely less on incarceration, which can break apart both families and communities … Improved training and community outreach can help to prevent the kind of encounters that have escalated into violence … Trust is built as police engage with members of the community in positive settings—such as schools, parks, and public forums—not just when confronting potential lawbreakers … Evan believes that ‘stop and frisk’ policies are a form of unreasonable search and seizure, and therefore inconsistent with our Fourth Amendment rights.”
[In other words, it’s all the fault of the police. Those bullying racist bigots must be required to treat the poor and the downtrodden justly.]
subheading: Criminal Justice Reform
“Violent felons should remain in prison for as long as necessary to prevent them from causing additional harm.”
[How long is that? In other words, Evan is against the death penalty.]
“… We could save tens of billions of dollars per year by making greater use of alternatives to prison as well as emphasizing rehabilitation in order to reduce the rate of recidivism.”
[Rehab DOES NOT WORK. And we would SPEND massive amounts of money on those programs. And criminals would be free to walk among us. I mean, even more than they are now.]
“… Second, judges should have greater discretion rather than having their hands tied by mandatory minimum sentences, which worsen racial and income-based sentencing disparities.”
[In other words, “Enough of this ‘rule of law s__t!’ “]
“Third, judges should be empowered to enroll offenders in diversion programs that emphasize community service, treatment for addiction, and other approaches to rehabilitation …”
[In other words, ditto last comment and let’s try something that has been proven not to work.]
“To prevent crime as well as further incarceration, prisons should expand job training and educational programs that can help released prisoners find work.”
[Ditto and ditto. Tic Tac Dittoe.]
“Our government should not target religious groups for discrimination or marginalization based on the obligations of their faith, but instead recognize that religious diversity and robust pluralism are foundational sources of strength for our nation.”
[NOT ONE WORD about protecting Christians from muslims and creeping sharia. In fact, NOT ONE WORD about Islam in ANY of McMullin’s Issues statements. NOTHING. NOT ONE WORD.]
“Our respect for life is the most important measure of our humanity. From conception to death – and any time in between – life is precious and we have a responsibility to protect it. A culture that subsidizes abortion on demand runs counter to the fundamental American belief in the potential of every person – it undermines the dignity of mother and child alike. Americans can and should work together to increase support and resources to reduce unintended pregnancies and encourage adoption, even if they may have different opinions on abortion rights.”
[No promise to repeal Roe v. Wade, or to end federal funding of abortion.]
[Abortion “undermines the dignity of mother and child alike.”? DIGNITY? Bravo, Foxtrot, Delta. The issue is MASS MURDER OF THE INNOCENT.]
[“Americans can and SHOULD … increase support and resources to reduce unintended pregnancies and encourage adoption” REGARDLESS OF THEIR BELIEFS!! Did you get that last little bit? Your beliefs are nothing to McMullin and you SHOULD spend your money to fix a problem caused by someone else’s irresponsible behavior. “Should” means “have a moral obligation to”. It’s on YOU, working man and woman, responsible citizen. YOU should etc. support the immoral and irresponsible, you bigoted greedy capitalist pigs.]
“We should also be concerned about the direction of global temperatures, which have risen about 1 degree Celsius over the past 50 years …”
[Is McMullin going to appoint algore to the EPA?]
“Evan McMullin believes that promoting innovation is the most promising way to deal with climate change without placing a heavy burden on the backs of American taxpayers and workers. The right way to promote innovation is to invest in basic research, not to provide loans and grants to politically connected corporations.”
[What does “invest in” mean if not “provide loans and grants”? More government picking winners and losers. And who would get these funds if not “politically connected corporations”? There would have to be a whole new bureaucracy created to administer these funds. Which BTW, guess who will provide…]
“Those who can work should have the opportunity to work. A compassionate nation like ours can help raise its people out of poverty while spending resources wisely. By streamlining programs, empowering state and local governments, and creating incentives to work, we can give poor Americans the opportunity to thrive while shielding them from the worst effects of poverty. Economic growth is the best long-term solution to poverty … We can remove … barriers to our economy, but we still need to help the poor while the engines of growth are restarting.”
[NOTE WELL: it’s not the free market that will help “poor Americans”. No, we “should” help them by government intervention (“streamlining programs, empowering state and local governments, and creating incentives to work”) but relax, you cranky conservatives, that’s only while “the engines of growth are restarting”. Which engines are going to be handicapped by McMullin’s government intervention. An example of which is in the next paragraph…]
“One shortcoming of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is that tax refunds may not arrive until someone has been working for more than a year. To provide a stronger incentive to work, there should be immediate benefits for those who have jobs. This can happen by transitioning from tax refunds to wage supplements, which add money to every paycheck, starting from day one. Wage supplements also create a strong incentive to spend more time at work, since the benefit rises with each hour spent on the job … By adding to the paychecks of low-income workers, EITC and wage supplements accomplish the same goal as an increase in the minimum wage, but without reducing the number of jobs available or punishing job creators … state governments should be able to customize anti-poverty programs in response to the particular challenges they face.”
[The government giveth and the government taketh away, and the free market had better stop griping. Kiss the government, lest it be angry with you and you perish in the way, when its wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Government.]
I wish I were a drinking man…