Oprah Makes Her 2016 Pick Using Controversial Logic

In the name of promoting women, Oprah Winfrey has endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

“Regardless of your politics, it’s a seminal moment for women,” she said. “What this says is, there is no ceiling, that ceiling just went boom! It says anything is possible when you can be leader of the free world.”

“I really believe that is going to happen,” said Winfrey of the possibility of America electing a female president. “It’s about time that we make that decision.”

“I’m with her,” Winfrey added, voicing a Clinton campaign slogan.

Winfrey’s decision did not meet with unversal approval among those commenting on the story of her endorsement that appeared on Entertainment Tonight’s website.

“It’s a seminal moment for America, but for the wrong reasons. When you vote for someone because they are a woman, or a black, rather than for someone because they are the best candidate, what you get is often corruption, incompetence, and at the least mediocrity. Voting for Hillary because she is a woman is like drinking anti-freeze because it looks like gator-aide. Wrong move, wrong decision,” wrote William Hofmeister.

Some flat out disagreed with Winfrey’s logic.

“A seminal moment for women???? Yeah, good idea, endorse a woman who keeps accept accepting donations from countries that repress and enslave woman,” wrote pc25.

Some opposed the concept that Clinton should be supported on the basis of gender alone.

“No. This is not enough. This is sexism. Hillary’s only ‘credential’ is that she’s female. She has no other skills, no other qualifications for the position. She rode her husband’s coattails to every job she’s ever had, and did each and every one miserably. Hillary = Death. Oprah is a terrible sexist,” wrote Peter Anastos. (For more from the author of “Oprah Makes Her 2016 Pick Using Controversial Logic” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

One Year After Same-Sex Marriage Decision, Dissent Not Permitted

By now, nearly one year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, it should be clear that the aggressive and unreasonable elements of the LGBT movement cannot harmonize themselves with freedom for Christians and other conscientious objectors.

With few, commendable examples, the LGBT movement’s activist class, who advocated for same-sex marriage and who are now aggressively pushing for government at all levels to implement their morality through special rights protections, bans on counseling for same-sex attraction, and now gender identity protections, simply want no dissent.

Beneath their policy demands is a desire for approval and forced participation in a regime endorsed one year ago by the Supreme Court itself. But approval is not obtained when others still have a legal right to conscientiously object.

If you want more evidence, look no further than recent efforts to attack Mississippi’s law protecting the rights of people to opt out of being involved in same-sex marriages.

Instead of recognizing Mississippi’s law (HB 1523) for what it is—a series of reasonable accommodations with explicit requirements that the government not interfere with same-sex couples’ rights—some of the usual suspects have chosen to sue because the accommodation isn’t good enough for them.

For example, Section 3(8)(a) of the law states that the person:

shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the authorization and licensing of any legally valid marriage is not impeded or delayed as a result of any recusal.

And Section 8(2) provides that:

[n]othing in this act shall be construed to prevent the state government from providing, either directly or through an individual or entity not seeking protection under this act, any benefit or service authorized under state law

The ACLU claims that the law makes same-sex couples feel different, and the Campaign for Southern Equality claims that they may be treated differently under the law; never mind the provisions cited above mandating otherwise.

Most tellingly, this group requests “any person recusing himself or herself under Section 3(8) of HB 1523 must treat all couples equally and shall therefore desist from issuing any marriage licenses to any other couples, including opposite-sex couples” (emphasis mine).

Never mind that no one has impeded any access to any licenses. So why demand that the clerk be ordered to desist from issuing all licenses if a same-sex couple would not notice any difference? Because, as seen in attacks on recusing judges elsewhere, this is about suppressing religious expression. The activist class can’t stand the idea that someone would not agree with their same-sex marriage, so they seek to stop the expression of these dissenting views—all in the name of “equality.”

The last group of plaintiffs to challenge HB 1523 claims that the law is invalid because it only allows people to opt out of the regime who hold certain beliefs. Never mind that that’s the point of opting out; no one is violating the consciences of those who support same-sex marriage. Such religious accommodations have been permitted in our laws in numerous ways for many years. Yet when it comes to the progressive LGBT agenda, there shall be no dissent.

The ACLU and like-minded allies don’t just want court-imposed same-sex marriage. They want approval from everyone else for these same-sex marriages. This approval is not gained by exempting an individual from participation in a same-sex marriage, but by forcing them to participate.

The legalization of same-sex marriage has not slowed the push for these coercive policies. After Obergefell, same-sex marriage licenses are being obtained without delay—but that’s not satisfactory to the activist class of the LGBT movement, who still has the same desire to stomp out any disagreement.

Ask yourself: who is being reasonable here?

On the one year anniversary of Obergefell, we have our answer. The question is what the future will hold. Will we as a society incline toward accommodation of religious views, or intolerance and suppression of deeply-held beliefs?

We must get this right, for our survival as a free and pluralistic nation depends on it. (For more from the author of “One Year After Same-Sex Marriage Decision, Dissent Not Permitted” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

7 Ways US Can Prevent Another Orlando Attack

In the wake of the Orlando terrorist attack, the Obama administration has been quick to blame gun control laws. This is because the administration refuses to admit its policies to defeat the Islamic State have failed.

Islamist terror attacks within the U.S. have dramatically increased within the past year—with Orlando being the 22nd instance of Islamist terrorism in the U.S. since 2015. This is out of 86 plots since 2001.

150613_terror-plots_fb1-1-1024x1024

Gun control will not stop this rise in Islamist terror attacks, and the president is wrong to suggest so. To stop these attacks and defeat radical Islamism, the U.S. needs to defend the U.S. homeland and combat terrorism abroad.

We must maintain essential counterterrorism tools to help law enforcement and intelligence agencies find and stop terrorists before they attack.

Here are seven policies that will help prevent another Orlando:

1. Combat Terrorism Abroad and Deny ISIS Territorial Gains

So long as the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, maintains territory in Afghanistan and Iraq, it will be a persistent terror threat.

Rolling back—and defeating—ISIS requires a global approach in which the U.S. leads a multipronged, multination effort that seeks to deny ISIS the ability to hold territory. This will disrupt its recruitment of foreign fighters, and will counter its destructive ideology.

One part of the solution must be military. ISIS derives much of its cachet and legitimacy from its success. Driving ISIS from its conquered territories will undermine the group’s legitimacy in the eyes of aspiring jihadists, thereby hurting its ability to recruit.

2. Shut Down the Foreign Fighter Pipeline

In order to defeat terrorism abroad, the U.S. must lead an international effort to deny ISIS territorial gains and shut down the foreign fighter pipeline. While military victory would undermine ISIS’ legitimacy, the U.S. must also improve intelligence capabilities to identify potential recruits and preempt Islamist violence.

This requires hard intelligence work and even closer coordination between countries to identify suspicious travel. This includes pushing allies to take greater intelligence and security measures that reflect the global nature of the threat.

The U.S. should make greater use of state and local law enforcement, both as intelligence sources and as intelligence users.

3. Ensure That the FBI Regularly Shares Information

The FBI must share information with state and local law enforcement—treating state and local partners as critical actors in the fight against terrorism.

State, local, and private sector partners must send and receive timely information from the FBI. Despite the lessons of 9/11 and other terrorist plots, the culture of the FBI continues to resist sharing information with state and local law enforcement.

4. Expand Active Shooter Threat Training Across the Country

Mass shootings in busy areas will always be a threat given America’s free society. Since state and local law enforcement officers will be the first to respond, training for active shooter events should be expanded through existing programs such as the Active Shooter Threat Training Program and corresponding instructor training program.

5. Community Outreach Remains a Vital Tool

The U.S. should facilitate strong community outreach and policing. Such capabilities are key to building trust in local communities, especially in high risk areas. If the U.S. is to thwart Islamist terrorist attacks successfully, it must do so by putting effective community outreach operations at the tip of the spear.

6. Maintain Essential Counterterrorism Tools

Support for important investigative tools is essential to maintaining the security of the U.S. and combating terrorist threats. Legitimate government surveillance programs are also a vital component of U.S. national security and should be allowed to continue.

7. Counter Islamist Ideology

The U.S. needs a strong, proactive counterterrorism policy in order to prevent future terrorist attacks like Orlando. We cannot afford to play politics when national security is at stake. The U.S. must do more both at home and abroad in order to uproot and defeat Islamist terrorism. (For more from the author of “7 Ways US Can Prevent Another Orlando Attack” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Will Ted Cruz Run for President in 2020? Leading Conservatives Already Thinking About It

Texas senator Ted Cruz was able to win 559 delegates in the Republican primaries before suspending his campaign on May 3, 2016. After Cruz’s supporters mourned the end of his campaign they started to ask the question: “What next?”

Nearly a month and a half later the answer is emerging. On Tuesday, June 14, The Hill reports, Cruz attended a private, confidential dinner with more than 20 top conservatives at the Virginia home of conservative activist L. Brent Bozell III, founder of the Media Research Center. Several other powerful conservative leaders were in attendance, including the Heritage Foundation’s president Jim DeMint, David McIntosh, the president of the Club for Growth, direct mail guru Richard Viguerie, Ken Blackwell, the former Republican mayor of Cincinnati and candidate for governor of Ohio, and the Susan B. Anthony List’s president Marjorie Dannenfelser.

The dinner was held to discuss Cruz’s future as well as the future of the conservative movement. The main topic of the night was how to position Cruz for the presidency in 2020 as he continues to champion the conservative movement as a senator.

Bozell downplayed the dinner, telling The Hill that “There was just discussion of the future of the movement and the future of Ted Cruz as the leader of the movement.” The newspaper also claimed that many of the leaders in attendance want Cruz to run for president again in 2020, comparing his campaign to that of Ronald Reagan’s first attempt at the presidency in 1976 when he lost the Republican nomination to Gerald Ford. Reagan continued to advocate for conservatism and came back to win the presidency in 1980,.

“I think [Cruz] earned the position of being the leader of the conservative movement in terms of an elected official,” Club For Growth’s McIntosh said. “Talking to him… I think he’s thinking about how to do that and ready to step into that leadership role.”

Cruz has not endorsed presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, and after this dinner suggests that he is focused on the future of the conservative movement as well as the possibility of a 2020 run for president. (For more from the author of “Will Ted Cruz Run for President in 2020? Leading Conservatives Already Thinking About It” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Gun Shop Reported ‘Suspicious’ Orlando Shooter to FBI

Robbie Abell, owner of a Florida gun shop, says he alerted authorities that a suspicious man had come in asking about body armor. Five weeks later, Omar Mateen – equipped with weapons he bought at a different shop after Abell’s employees refused to sell to him – killed 49 people and injured as many at Pulse night club in Orlando.

The Wall Street Journal quotes Abell as telling them that his store, Lotus Gunworks of South Florida, “shut him down on all sales” after be began asking bizarre questions about body armor and bulk ammunition. “The questions he was asking were not the normal questions a normal person would be asking… He just seemed very odd,” Abell said. The armor Mateen asked about is not traditionally available to civilians.

Abell noted that he made a phone call during his time in the store, and appeared to be speaking in Arabic. Mateen is from an Afghan family, and his father – a prolific pro-Taliban Youtuber – is known to speak at least two Afghan languages, Dari and Pashto. Mateen’s wife, Noor Salman, identifies as “Palestinian,” which would make her a likely Arabic speaker. She has confessed to shopping for weapons with Mateen.

Abell says his store alerted authorities to the suspicious man, though he did not say which authorities– whether he spoke to local police, FBI, or Homeland Security. Local CBS 12 notes that Abell’s store appeared to be following the procedures “in line with the FBI’s push for people to ‘see something, say something,‘ if they witness anything that makes them feel uncomfortable.” (Read more from “Gun Shop Reported ‘Suspicious’ Orlando Shooter to FBI” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Walmart Hostage Taker Shot by Cops in TX Was Muslim ‘Refugee’

A man who took two co-workers hostage at an Amarillo, Texas, Walmart Tuesday was a Muslim refugee from Somalia, and that fact came as no surprise to those who track the federal government’s robust refugee resettlement program.

Amarillo is bursting at the seams with foreign refugees, from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and its mayor has pleaded repeatedly with the government to stop sending refugees to his city . . .

On Tuesday, it was just another example. Mohammad Moghaddan, a Somali refugee, was shot and killed by sheriff’s deputies after he had taken two Walmart employees hostage.

Moghaddan, 54, was a current employee of the store, and his actions were quickly declared “a case of work place violence” by the sheriff’s office. The hostage taker, armed with a handgun, was shot dead by a SWAT team as terrified shoppers were ushered out of the store.

The city’s mayor has been on a crusade since 2011 to get the U.S. State Department, working with the United Nations, to put a damper on the number of refugees flooding into his city. (Read more from “Walmart Hostage Taker Shot by Cops in TX Was Muslim ‘Refugee'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

CIA Chief Says Islamic State Plans to Intensify Attacks

Islamic State will intensify its global terrorism campaign by directing as well as inspiring attacks in the U.S. and elsewhere, despite its mounting territorial and financial losses in Syria and Iraq, CIA Director John Brennan said.

The organization “will probably rely more on guerrilla tactics,” such as the attacks in Paris and Brussels in the past year that were directed by its leadership, Brennan told the Senate Intelligence Committee at a hearing on Thursday. It will also seek to inspire more attacks similar to those in San Bernardino, California, in December and in Orlando, Florida, this week, he said.

So far, there’s is no indication that Omar Mateen, who carried out the Orlando shooting, the worst massacre in modern U.S. history, had a direct link to Islamic State or any other foreign terrorist organization, Brennan said.

The Central Intelligence Agency chief’s stark assessment of the group’s intentions and capabilities contrasts with the Obama administration’s portrait of the group as being in decline because of increasing success in the the U.S.-led military campaign to retake territory that the group has claimed, and to cut off its oil income and other revenue . . .

“Despite our progress against ISIL on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability and global reach,” Brennan said, using an acronym for the group. “As the pressure mounts on ISIL, we judge that it will intensify its global terror campaign to maintain its dominance of the global terrorism agenda.” (Read more from “CIA Chief Says Islamic State Plans to Intensify Attacks” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Pro-Life Women’s Clinic That Wants to ‘Replace Planned Parenthood’ — and Might Do It

In 2006, Brandi Swindell opened her first pro-life pregnancy care clinic. Ten years later, Stanton Healthcare has clinics in multiple U.S. states, one in Northern Ireland, and more on the way. It’s even caught the eye of Cosmopolitan. The abortion-supporting publication recently published a generally positive profile of Swindell’s clinics and business model, including her goal to “Replace Planned Parenthood.”

Swindell spoke with The Stream on Thursday about how Stanton — named for famed abolitionist and women’s suffrage advocate Elizabeth Cady Stanton, whose rejection of abortion is quoted on the company’s site — services women, and her expectation that it will have affiliates in Alabama, Washington, D.C., and other places within the next two years.

Beating Planned Parenthood At Its Own Game

“One of the things that Planned Parenthood tries to do — and they spend millions of dollars in marketing and advertising this — is to bill themselves, to present themselves, to women as the only choice in women’s healthcare and in unexpected pregnancy care,” said Swindell.

“Part of our idea with Stanton Healthcare is to go where the women are that are facing an unexpected pregnancy and that are trying to determine what they should do in that situation. So for us, it makes perfect sense: ‘Why don’t we go to where the women are. Abortion-vulnerable, or abortion-minded, women are often seeking out the services of Planned Parenthood because that’s what they’re told — that Planned Parenthood is the only place to go to.’”

Stanton’s strategy, she continued, “is to set up shop and open clinics right next door to Planned Parenthood. And we’ve trialed this in Idaho, and then our other affiliate locations, and it works. We have walk-ins every week who are on their way to Planned Parenthood to get an abortion or to have a consultation from Planned Parenthood.”

Calling Planned Parenthood “the largest abortion vendor chain in the world, in the nation, and right here in Idaho,” Swindell described Stanton locations as “state-of-the-art clinics that provide quality care [and] solutions to unexpected pregnancies with life-affirming alternatives.”

That appeals to women who need a clinic, she said. “Women see our signs that say, ‘Walk-ins Welcome,’ ‘Unexpected Pregnancy Solutions At No Charge,’ ‘Pregnancy Verification At No Cost To Our Clients,’ they come in. Because they’re looking for hope, and they’re looking for a professional, confidential setting that will provide them true alternatives. We see walk-ins every week, of women who have said, ‘I’m so glad I found this place, I’m so glad that there’s resources, I’m so glad I’m not alone.”

According to Swindell, the “Stanton Revolution” is totally privately funded, and all services — including, but not limited to, ultrasounds, housing assistance, counseling and adoption — are free. And unlike Planned Parenthood, which gets approximately $540 million annually from various government sources across the U.S., “we are completely and totally 100 percent privately funded,” explains Swindell.

“We rely on people who believe in our work, they believe in our mission, they believe in our strategy. We rely on people’s goodwill – if you want to help us reach women facing unexpected pregnancies, who want to help us with the message of embracing human rights for all.”

“A Very Holistic Approach” That Avoids Birth Control

“We are advocates of empowering women, informing women, and giving them information that helps them make positive decisions,” Stanton told The Stream. “Our nurses have very real discussions with all of the women who walk through our doors. Each and every one of our clients has a very real discussion with our nurse about sexual integrity, what that looks like, what choices that are healthy for women physically, emotionally and spiritually. We have a very holistic approach.”

“We do not support any type of birth control that is an abortifacient. We also aren’t in the business of handing out condoms or whatever type of barrier method to anybody and everybody. That’s what Planned Parenthood does, they give out condoms to 12-year olds.”

“We don’t believe in giving out condoms like it’s candy. We’re into value-based sexual integrity; we’re filling a niche that women in this emerging generation aren’t going to find at Planned Parenthood. When they come to us, they’re going to get a holistic approach on sexual integrity. And they’re going to get fully informed.” (For more from the author of “The Pro-Life Women’s Clinic That Wants to ‘Replace Planned Parenthood’ — and Might Do It” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is Trump to the Left of the ACLU on Guns?

Donald Trump’s record on the Second Amendment has been mixed. Trump has supported the so-called “assault weapons” ban and favors a longer waiting period to buy a gun. Now he has taken it one step further and has come out in favor of banning weapons sales to people put on a no-fly list with no due process.

This is something that even the ACLU is against. That’s right, Trump is now to the left of the ACLU on guns.

Here’s what Trump said yesterday via tweet.

This is something that liberals have been pushing since the attacks in San Bernardino last year. At the time of the attack, the ACLU came out strongly against this position.

Last night, in response to last week’s tragic attack in San Bernardino, California, President Obama urged Congress to ensure that people on the No Fly List be prohibited from purchasing guns. Last week, Republicans in Congress defeated a proposal that would have done just that. “I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said.

There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform. As we will argue to a federal district court in Oregon this Wednesday, the standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating.

That’s right. The liberal ACLU has come out against using the no-fly list, with its lack of due process, as a means to deprive citizens of their constitutional right to own a gun. Donald Trump is now officially to the left of the ACLU in that regard.

He has also been endorsed by the NRA. Who is still steadfastly against Trump’s suggestion.

Will the NRA rescind that endorsement? (For more from the author of “Is Trump to the Left of the ACLU on Guns?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Is the Senate GOP Leadership Helping Obama Pass Job-Killing Treaties?

As Barack Obama becomes the lamest of lame ducks, you can count on him to take every opportunity to aim a parting shot at what’s left of the American economy and the U.S. Constitution. In recent weeks he has abused his executive authority on guns, overtime pay, gender-bending bathroom rules on states and parents, and U.S. “boots on the ground” in Libya, Yemen and Syria.

Unsurprisingly, the GOP leadership in Congress is utterly ineffective in blocking him.

Even worse, on some matters top Congressional Republicans have shown their readiness to carry Obama’s water for him. The best-known examples are the 2014 $1.1 trillion “Cromnibus” abomination (which funded Obama’s illegal actions on immigration) and approval of “Obamatrade” authority last year to expedite horrible deals like TTIP (the “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership” with the European Union) and TPP (the “Trans-Pacific Partnership”), which Donald Trump rightly has called “insanity.”

Now there’s yet another monstrosity waiting in the wings. Obama and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew are trying to shoehorn the United States into a global financial reporting scheme that would trash American sovereignty, suck money out of the U.S. economy, and violate constitutional principles, such as respecting the Senate’s advice and consent to treaties and requiring warrants for searches of personal data.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the Senate is lining up to help Obama and Lew do it.

At issue are seven obscure tax treaties being held up by Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT). Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN) is trying to pry loose Paul’s and Lee’s “hold” on the treaties and to rubber stamp them without fixing data reporting standards that violate the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The two Senators are happy to quit blocking the pacts, which are otherwise acceptable, if they are amended to remedy that defect.

A Dear Colleague letter signed by Corker – but clearly drafted by Lew’s Treasury Department – claims to debunk Paul’s and Lee’s objections in what amounts to a rehash of Obama administration talking points. For example, the letter (evidently prompted by my recent commentary opposing the treaties) claims blocking them won’t prevent operation of a little-known 2010 law called the “Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act” (FATCA), which the Obama administration has sought to implement using a series of unauthorized and unratified “intergovernmental agreements.” With all due respect to Chairman Corker, this claim is inaccurate. For example, Article 5(1) of the relevant agreement with Switzerland says in so many words that FATCA requests ‘shall not be made prior to the entry into force’ of a treaty the two Senators have a hold on. If that’s not blocking, what is?

From the standpoint of American jobs and foreign investment in the U.S., there is even more at stake. Since the “Panama Papers” story broke, foreign officials have accused the United States of acting as a tax haven as well as permitting states like Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming not to disclose “beneficial ownership” of corporations. There have been calls to blacklist the United States, and even to apply sanctions against us.

Barack Obama has invited these attacks on America by his administration’s practice over the past five years of subjecting our trading partners to one-sided, costly and humiliating FATCA demands under threat of financial sanctions. They have capitulated, in part because Obama – as noted above, with no legal authority – has promised foreign governments the U.S. would provide reciprocal data under the FATCA agreements he refuses to submit to the Senate as treaties. Now he expects Congress to make good on his imprudent and legally deficient pledges.

It’s important to keep in mind the seven tax treaties are themselves innocuous and even desirable from the standpoint of avoiding double taxation for Americans doing business overseas. But contrary to Chairman Corker’s letter, ratifying them without fixing their constitutional defects facilitates their use as vehicles for data reporting under the legally dubious FATCA “intergovernmental agreements,” many of which also require “reciprocal reporting” from domestic U.S. institutions to foreign governments. This would hit U.S. banks, credit unions, insurance companies, mutual funds, etc. with costs comparable to those FATCA imposes on foreign institutions, which run into the millions per financial institution (for example, Canada’s Bank of Nova Scotia alone already had spent $100 million as of 2013). Imposing the same burdens here in the U.S. would mean billions of dollars extracted from American consumers and taxpayers, spurring massive capital flight from the United States and lost jobs. That’s why U.S. credit unions have written to the Congressional leadership to oppose domestic expansion of FATCA, which would “increase regulatory burdens on American credit unions and banks without resulting in a single dollar of new tax revenue to the Treasury.”

Finally, the seven treaties are a stalking horse for another item on Obama’s and Lew’s political bucket list: a so-called “Protocol amending the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters” that would lock in a FATCA-like international “common reporting standard” as treaty obligation. The result would be essentially FATCA gone global—sometimes called GATCA – which in would be set for a global tax under United Nations auspices, pressure on the U.S. to raise our domestic tax rates and subjecting our country to the oversight of bureaucrats at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and other international organizations.

Republican leaders should not provide ex post facto authority for Obama’s and Lew’s reciprocal FATCA and GATCA schemes, which would also hand embattled IRS Commissioner John Koskinen sweeping new regulatory powers. It comes as no surprise that President Obama seeks to impose these burdens on America as his parting gift. What is deplorable is that any Republican leader would help him do it. Instead of promoting Obama’s global regime, it’s time for Senate Republicans to put America first. They should join Senators Paul and Lee in ensuring these treaties are not ratified until Obama leaves office, and get ready to send President Donald Trump a FATCA repeal bill early next year if President Obama succeeds. (For more from the author of “Why Is the Senate GOP Leadership Helping Obama Pass Job-Killing Treaties?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.