Federal Judge Forces Florida to Extend Registration for as Long as Democrats Desire

/0 Comments/in , /by

Democrats are succeeding at another game of “never let a crisis go to waste without getting more votes.”

The federal judicial assault on state sovereignty has grown out of control to such an extent that some states might want to cancel their elections and have the judges vote in place of the people. After all, they not only decide every political issue — thereby rendering the results of elections moot — but are now determining all of the methods and procedures for elections in the first place. The latest example in the train of usurpations is a judge forcing Florida to extend the voter registration deadline for as many days as Democrat activists demand because Hurricane Matthew disrupted several days of mail and registration activity.

On Monday, Judge Mark Walker of the Northern District of Florida, an Obama appointee, castigated Florida Governor Rick Scott for not extending voter registration past the existing deadline of Tuesday night, October 11. In one of the most political decisions I’ve ever seen, Judge Walker ordered the state to keep voter registration open for Wednesday, October 12. Then after a brief hearing yesterday, Judge Walker agreed to the Democrat request to extend registration until next Tuesday, even though voter registration was only disrupted for a few days.

In this column, I’ve written about numerous cases where federal judges have nullified the most common sense state election laws, a sphere of policy over which states have near complete power. Just over the past few months, federal judges have mandated specific days for early voting, pre-registration of 16-year-olds, required straight ticket voting options, mandated extra polling stations, blocked states from verifying citizenship of voters, forced Ohio to place 465,000 dead voters back on the voter rolls, and terminated photo ID laws in a number of states. On Monday, and then again on Wednesday, the Florida judge took this judicial civil disobedience and nullification a step further by striking down Florida’s inaction! He contended that the lack of “a provision [in state law] that extends the voter registration deadline in the event of an emergency” is unconstitutional.

Earlier in the week, Governor Scott rebuffed requests from Democrats to extend the voter registration period. It’s important to remember that this is a judgement call and a political question. Voters had months to register and there is no constitutional right to any specific number of days to register, any number of days to vote early, or any special methods and procedures of mailing in forms. If anything, given modern transportation and communication, it is now easier to register to vote and cast a ballot than at any time in our history. Yet, somehow the absence of more and more registration days requested by Democrats is somehow unconstitutional.

What’s next? Are the judges going to comb through the two-year period between federal elections and determine on how many days there was inclement weather and extend the period further? October 11 is more than a reasonable registration deadline for voting four weeks later, especially given that early voting is already under way in most states. Scott was well within his right to stick to the statute and not elect to offer an extension. If voters want to punish him for that decision, they have the ability to do so, but that is a political issue, not a legal or constitutional question.

In a classic display of legal subterfuge, in an attempt to disguise his radicalism, Judge Walker asserts that he is “not suggesting that Florida has to allow voter registration up to Election Day,” even though he speaks meritoriously about the states that offer same-day registration. Wink, wink, nod, nod. In other words, for this case, it will be sufficient to deliver more Democrat votes by merely extending the registration period to an unknown period prior to the election under the judge’s discretion. But if same-day registration ever comes up in court, one never knows what could happen. In the one-directional, post-constitutional legal ratchet, a Fourteenth and First Amendment right to same-day registration might appear!

In his Wednesday order, Judge Walker cited evidence of naturalization ceremonies being cancelled as a result of the storm, and that “through no fault of their own, they [aspiring citizens] would not have had the opportunity to vote in the 2016 election.” Where do we draw the line? What about those who might be naturalized next week or right up until Election Day? Which shouldn’t they get to vote in the election?

The legal system now believes that anything short of molly-coddling people into registering and voting under every and all circumstances is tantamount to disenfranchising voters. Yet, clamping down on voter fraud and non-citizens voting — the most profound manifestation of disenfranchisement — is rendered illegal.

Most importantly, a federal court should never have jurisdiction over basic state voting laws. At best, lawsuits against state election laws should be filed in state court.

Then again, Governor Rick Scott has nobody to blame but himself and Republicans like him. A few months ago, he declared gay marriage “the law of the land” because “the Supreme Court has already made a decision.” Scott must suffer through the judicial supremacy he legitimized. Heck, if a federal court can redefine the building black of all civilization, it most certainly can control voter registration.

When will states learn to finally fight back? (For more from the author of “Federal Judge Forces Florida to Extend Registration for as Long as Democrats Desire” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

As Planned Parenthood Celebrates Death, Pro-Life Groups Promote Life

/0 Comments/in , /by

Sunday is Planned Parenthood’s 100th “birthday.” Founded by an anti-abortion woman who believed that contraception empowered women’s liberty, the organization has morphed into America’s largest abortion company, ending over 300,000 unborn babies’ lives each year.

Planned Parenthood has launched #100yearsstrong in an effort to promote its history and its work. Pro-life groups have responded with their own hashtags, fact-based analyses of Planned Parenthood’s practices and prayer. Three efforts are highlighted below.

#100ForLife

Since Wednesday, The Stream has highlighted the horrors of abortion, the hope seen in those Planned Parenthood hasn’t killed and prayerful efforts for national and individual conversion. We’re grateful to our many individual partners in this effort, and the Family Research Council for working with us to spread the truth about abortion.

Our hashtag is #100ForLife. Our weapon is God.

#100YearsOfAbuse

A coalition of pro-life groups is exposing Planned Parenthood’s many examples of wrongdoing – not just to the unborn, but also their mothers, and taxpayers.

Member groups include: Alliance Defending Freedom, Americans United for Life, Civil Rights for the Unborn, Family Research Council, Life Legal Defense Foundation, March for Life, Media Research Center, Pro-Life Action League, Radiance Foundation, Students for Life of America, and Susan B. Anthony List.

Here is their group statement:

“Planned Parenthood’s 100-year anniversary is a tragic milestone for our nation and a reminder of the millions of unborn children who will never have a birthday. We mourn these children, as well as the women who have been hurt and exploited by the nation’s largest abortion chain. Planned Parenthood was founded by the notorious Margaret Sanger, who advocated for the eradication of poor and disadvantaged, whom she considered less-than-human “weeds.” And Planned Parenthood continues to call this villain their hero by naming its highest award after her.

“In the last three years alone, Planned Parenthood has committed nearly one million abortions while receiving a total of $1.5 billion from the American people, against our will. We represent the growing number of Americans who oppose Planned Parenthood’s extreme abortion agenda and seek to defund this abortion giant.

“On its 100th anniversary, Planned Parenthood is losing ground. Business is drying up as women are empowered to choose life for their babies. Last year Planned Parenthood closed 33 facilities in 18 states, and for the first time, the United States Senate sent a bill defunding Planned Parenthood to the President’s desk. Thanks to undercover investigators from the Center for Medical Progress, who exposed the ugly truth that Planned Parenthood not only aborts children, but sells those aborted babies’ organs, more people than ever are learning the truth about the scandal-ridden abortion chain. The #100YearsofAbuse campaign is the next opportunity for us to educate the public about Planned Parenthood as we work to put them out of business and ring in the pro-life century.”

Their hashtag is #100YearsOfAbuse. Content can be seen here.

A Way Out Through Prayer

The Pro-Life Action League is sponsoring over 100 prayer vigils nationwide to combat Planned Parenthood, and to save lives. As told to The Stream:

The Pro-Life Action League has organized prayer vigils at over 100 Planned Parenthood centers, at which they’ll offer prayers of mourning for Planned Parenthood’s unborn victims. Scheidler explains: “To acknowledge the humanity of these unknown, unnamed, faceless and abandoned children is a very positive thing to do. The abortion industry and their allies in government and the media want us all to forget about these kids, but we won’t.”

Pro-Life Action League Executive Director Eric Scheidler told The Stream that in addition to prayer, his group is offering abortion industry employees a way out – to convert from dealing death to supporting life. They’ve sent “birthday” cards that include a graphic image of an abortion victim to every Planned Parenthood nationwide, and told employees that if the image bothers them, to call Scheidler.

“It would be easy to demonize people working at Planned Parenthood, aiding and abetting the nation’s largest abortion business,” Scheidler told The Stream. But, he argues, employees “are regular people, whose consciences are often deeply troubled by what goes on behind the doors of Planned Parenthood’s 631 facilities.”

Planned Parenthood’s Corporate Sponsors

Corporate watchdog 2nd Vote listed 37 corporations as “direct” donors to Planned Parenthood. The graphic comes from the Family Research Council.

(For more from the author of “As Planned Parenthood Celebrates Death, Pro-Life Groups Promote Life” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Seven Things the Donald Trump Wrecking Ball Has Exposed in Our Culture

/0 Comments/in , /by

It was former governor Jeb Bush who first referred to Donald Trump as the “chaos candidate.” Now, Lance Wallnau, an out-of-the-box Christian thinker and businessman, has dubbed Trump “God’s chaos candidate,” writing a book by this title (with the subtitle, “Donald J. Trump and the American Unraveling”).

Wallnau believes that God is using Trump as a “wrecking ball to the spirit of political correctness,” claiming, “His emergence is such a destabilizing threat to the vast deal making machinery embedded in both parties that he has the unique distinction of being rejected by both liberal Democrats and establishment Republicans at the same time.”

Whether Wallnau is right in all of his beliefs remains to be seen (I’m scheduled to interview him next Wednesday, October 19, live, from 2-3 PM, EST, and I’ll be sure to ask him lots of probing questions, since he strongly supports Trump for president), but what is clear to me is that God is using Trump as a wrecking ball of sorts, and the results are not pretty.

What has this human wrecking ball helped expose?

1) Trump has helped to expose the carnality of the culture.

It was Donald Trump who initially delighted his crowds by dropping F- bombs, and it is Donald Trump whose borderline profane tweets ignite his followers today. The crasser, the better!

But Trump is not alone in his carnality. His words and actions have encouraged his supporters to engage in the most profane rhetoric, as they not only defend him but also feel empowered by his example.

2) Trump has helped to expose the superficiality of the culture.

Candidate Trump remains a reality TV star, and much of his political appeal is tied to his rock star status.

To be sure, candidate Obama took on rock star status during his first presidential campaign, but as undeserved as Obama’s stardom was, it had a very different feel than the stardom of Trump. That’s why I wrote back in May that he was “a National Enquirer candidate for a Jerry Springer generation.”

Now, in saying this, I do not mean that Trump has not struck a chord with many Americans, for whom he has provided a voice, and I don’t mean that people are not voting for him because of his policies. I simply mean that his candidacy has helped bring our superficiality to the surface.

3) Trump has helped to expose the vulgarity of our culture.

Forget about the release of the 2005 videotape with Trump’s horrific comments about women. That’s news from 11 years ago.

We’re talking about the candidate who boasted about the size of his manhood during a debate in the primaries.

And now, with his opponent’s husband being an even easier target, the most recent presidential debate (I use the term “presidential” with hesitation) degenerated into rhetoric like, “Yeah, what I said was bad, but what he did was even worse.”

The other day, I spent a few seconds browsing the Drudge Report and then the Huffington Post, in both cases just looking at the most prominent headlines, after which I felt like I needed to take a shower to get the dirt and grime off of me. These websites were absolutely in the gutter.

Does anyone think that if the battle for the White House was between, say, Jeb Bush and Bernie Sanders, that the headlines would be as vulgar and debased? (And yes, on Drudge, there are now accusations of impropriety directed against President Obama as well.)

4) Trump has helped to expose an unhealthy nationalism.

I certainly recognize that many Americans are deeply upset with the direction of our nation (for good reason), and Trump has appealed to their frustration and anger, promising to turn the ship around.

But Trump has also helped stir up an almost rabid, America-first nationalism (whether intentionally or not), one that can easily lead to xenophobia, racism, and more, one that feeds on these very attitudes and mindsets. In keeping with this, a White Supremacist website claimed that it was “the Jews” who were behind the release of the damning 2005 video tape.

I am not connecting Trump with this website (obviously) and I am not stating that he himself is a racist or a xenophobe. I’m simply saying that his campaign has caused these sentiments to surface with a vengeance.

5) Trump has helped to expose the corruption of the political system.

There are many Christians who feel that the Hillary vs. Trump presidential race is a sure sign of divine judgment on America, as if God is giving us over to our foolishness.

At the same time, Trump’s refusal to play the standard political game has helped reveal the power of the political establishment, both Republican and Democrat, and with that, the corruption of the political establishment. Will we ever look at these parties in the same way again?

6) Trump has helped to expose the massive divisions among evangelicals.

This is not just a matter of a difference of opinion. It is a matter of one evangelical leader claiming that any Christian who votes for Trump is guilty of idolatry and another evangelical leader claiming that any Christian who does not vote for Trump will be held accountable by God and will have the blood of the unborn on his or her hands.

One group asks, “As a Christian, how can you possibly vote for such a narcissitic, proud, vulgar, potty-mouthed, short-tempered, inexperienced man who is absolutely unfit for the presidency?”

The other group responds, “As a Christian, how can you not vote against Hillary Clinton and how can you not recognize that we’re not electing a Pastor in Chief but a Commander in Chief? God is raising up Trump!”

Again, I’m not blaming Donald Trump for these divisions (and I’ve barely scratched the surface in detailing them). To the contrary, these divisions were already there (even down to the meaning of “evangelical”); Trump’s presidential run has just helped to reveal them.

7) Trump has helped to expose the collusion of the liberal media with the Democrat Party.

I don’t doubt for a moment that if Ted Cruz was the Republican candidate, the liberal media would be doing everything in its power to bring him down, and this would have been true 10 years ago (and longer) as well as today.

But it appears that the media that gave Trump endless, free time on its networks during the primaries is the same media now seeking to bring him down, lending credence to the allegation that the liberal networks (at least some of them) helped prop Trump up during the primaries because he would be the easiest target to bring down in the general election.

Whether or not this is true, the media’s radical liberal bias and pro-Hillary sentiments cannot be denied, to the point of almost being shouted out by the moderators during the presidential debates. Or should we think nothing of a moderator arguing a policy position with Trump, as if he was debating her (Martha Raddatz) rather than Hillary?

The bottom line for me is simple, regardless of who you plan to vote for (and I don’t write this to discourage a vote for Trump): God has used Trump to expose a lot of what is wrong with America, and it is not a pretty sight. (For more from the author of “Seven Things the Donald Trump Wrecking Ball Has Exposed in Our Culture” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Recent Polling Proves That LGBT ‘Non-Discrimination’ Laws Are Completely Unnecessary

/0 Comments/in , /by

A new survey finds that an increasing number of Americans support a federal “non-discrimination” law that includes sexual orientation and gender identity provisions.

The “2016 Out & Equal Workplace Survey” — conducted by The Harris Poll in conjunction with Out & Equal Workplace Advocates and Witeck Communications — surveyed 2,223 adults about their views on LGBT issues in the workplace. The Harris Poll notes that there is an over-sample of gay and lesbian adults included in the sample.

What it found was that 67 percent of Americans support federal law that “prohibits discrimination in employment, public accommodations, housing and credit” on the basis of sexual attraction or perceived gender.

While some will see this and wonder why these laws don’t exist, the numbers actually show why Americans don’t need these so-called “SOGI [Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity] laws.”

Last week, in response to a grossly misleading video segment about North Carolina’s HB2 “bathroom bill” on “The Daily Show with Trever Noah” — where two guys rent a food truck in the Tarheel State to deny service to people just because they can — Reason.com’s Scott Shackford addressed the absurdity of some claims made by the Left in regard to the so-called “permission to discriminate,” and the misnomer that it represents:

The possibility of this kind of discrimination has been around all along because it hadn’t been forbidden. The segment also incorrectly states that discrimination against LGBT people in the state will be legal for as long as HB2 is on the books. It will remain legal even if HB2 is repealed (at least on the state level) because, again, sexual orientation and gender identity are not considered protected classes by the state.

With this reality, the two men in the “Daily Show” segment had to create their own scenario to prove what could happen — rather than an actual reflection of circumstances.

“If there were a serious, widespread problem with discrimination against gay people, they wouldn’t have had to set up a fake food truck, would they?” Schackford continues, arguing any actual discriminators would have been caught and shame-filmed.

“But they didn’t. They had to fabricate a Seinfeldian Soup Nazi-style environment to try to present an exaggerated possibility […] Yes, discrimination exists, but there is no widespread conspiracy to exclude gay and transgender people, and there is so much more cultural pressure that can resolve it positively without getting the state involved.”

And the same is true of the calls for federal non-discrimination orders. There is no majority effort or a massive cultural push to keep people out of jobs, housing or health care simply because of sexual orientation or issues of gender identity. If there were, you can guarantee that such instances would get just as much (if not more) hyped mainstream media coverage as police-involved shootings.

If a business were to actually fire someone for being gay anywhere in America, we need not try too hard to imagine the witch hunt that would ensue.

Take, for example, the case of Brendan Eich, who was effectively forced to resign from his Mozilla CEO post in 2014 for donating a paltry $1,000 to a pro-natural marriage cause six years before. Or Memories Pizza in Indiana that had to close down as its owners went into hiding during the RFRA fight last spring from arson and death threats. The pizza shop owners’ crime? Saying they hypothetically wouldn’t cater a same-sex wedding ceremony.

And, going back to North Carolina’s HB2, 72 percent of respondents in the 2016 Out & Equal Workplace Survey said they were more likely to buy from businesses that opposed the law.

Whether these trends are good for the wellbeing of American society, the natural family, or human ecology as a whole is one thing. What they do show is just how unnecessary government involvement is.

These kinds of SOGI laws that people say they’re in favor of are what Alliance Defending Freedom’s James Gottry calls “a subversive response to a nonexistent problem.”

Discrimination against these populations is not significant, Gottry says, because the vast majority of Americans already respect each other and “because anyone engaged in baseless discrimination faces the prospect of social and financial consequences brought on by public pressure and boycotts.”

“SOGI laws,” Gottry counters, “use the full force of the law to punish individuals who seek to live peacefully and to work in a way that is consistent with their consciences.” And we’ve seen this time and time again as these sorts of ordinances have endangered or destroyed the livelihoods of people across America — whether bakers in Oregon, a photographer in Arizona, or a florist in Washington, or countless others.

In light of these conditions, federal statutes like the Equality Act and both prior manifestations of Employment Non-Discrimination Act would function not as a seawall against widespread discrimination against gays and transgendered people, like their advocates would argue. Rather, they would function but as heavy mallets to crush whatever conscientious objection still remains to our hypersexualized, hyper-sensitized culture.

Using federal-government hammers to bash any and all dissenters out of the market and public square is not the habit of people in a truly free society. While most Americans have the best intentions in their support for SOGI laws, asking the government to mandate “equality” in this case is little more than further legitimizing anti-conscientious government tyranny. (For more from the author of “Why Recent Polling Proves That LGBT ‘Non-Discrimination’ Laws Are Completely Unnecessary” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Battleground State Freefall for Trump Continues

/0 Comments/in , /by

With less than four weeks remaining in the 2016 race it couldn’t look much worse the campaign of Donald Trump. His free fall in key battleground state polling has continued unabated. What makes it even more concerning for Trump is that most of the battleground state polling has not even taken into account the Access Hollywood audio tape.

As usual, I took a look at the RealClearPolitics polling average in 14 battleground states on Wednesday afternoon, October 12, 2016. It was compared to the data from the previous week. In 11 of those 14 states Trump lost ground to Clinton, one state showed no change, and in two states Trump showed a slight up tic.

Clinton now leads in 10 of the 14 states shown in the week-by-week graphics below. Trump leads in four. Clinton leads by over six points or more in six of those states, Trump leads by greater than six in one of them. Of particular concern to Trump is Arizona, where he now holds a slim one point margin.

If the election were held today, Trump would lose in an Electoral College rout.

As an indicator of how bad Trump’s situation is, look at this tweet from the Marquette University Law School polling department. It illustrates how Trump’s numbers deteriorated after the release of the Billy Bush conversation last Friday.

That is shocking. Trump went from a one point lead pre-tape to a 19 point deficit two days later.

Trump’s problems are compounded by the fact that instead of going on offense on Hillary Clinton, like he did at the debate this week, he has spent the majority of his time attacking his fellow Republicans for not loving him enough.

It’s going to be a long three weeks for the Trump campaign. (For more from the author of “Battleground State Freefall for Trump Continues” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pro-Life Groups Fight Obama Administration’s ‘Parting Gift’ to Planned Parenthood

/0 Comments/in , /by

Pro-life groups are taking action against what they call the Obama administration’s “parting gift” to Planned Parenthood.

“This is a political judgment, a parting gift,” Chuck Donovan, president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, said of the new rule that could make it more difficult for states to defund Planned Parenthood clinics. “It’s part of the devotion to big abortion.”

The Department of Health and Human Services’ proposed rule came in response to several states’ attempt to defund Planned Parenthood after the nation’s largest abortion provider was featured in a series of undercover videos last year.

Under the rule, states would be prohibited from blocking Planned Parenthood from receiving Title X grant money for reasons “unrelated” to its ability to provide family planning services.

Created in 1970, Title X provides grants to health organizations for family planning services such as birth control and sterilizations. The manner in which states distribute federal Title X funds varies, but grants are typically allocated to health agencies and private networks. Sometimes, it is up to the state to allocate the grant money, and other times, private entities can decide.

After the Center for Medical Progress released several undercover videos last year that raised questions about whether Planned Parenthood illegally profits off the sale of tissue from aborted babies, states—including Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin—moved to block the group from being eligible to receive family planning funds.

Planned Parenthood denied the allegations, and was cleared in multiple investigations.

In justifying the new rule that it released in September, the Obama administration claims the state effort to defund Planned Parenthood has decreased the number of Title X providers from 48 to 36, and also decreased the total number of Title X clients served.

In response, groups like the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Susan B. Anthony List, Family Research Council, and Alliance Defending Freedom are filing comments with HHS opposing the proposal.

“The question isn’t whether states should fund Planned Parenthood,” Steven H. Aden, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal. “All of them do, to my knowledge. The question is whether the states should be permitted by the Obama administration to shepherd limited public health dollars in a way that most effectively delivers primary and secondary health care to women.

“What the proposed rule does is define success under Title X solely on the ability to provide the most contraceptives to the most women. That’s Planned Parenthood’s business model and unfortunately, that’s this administration’s idea of women’s health care. But Title X is much broader than that.”

A summary of the proposed rule, as described by the Department of Health and Human Services, states:

Since 2011, 13 states have taken actions to restrict participation by certain types of providers as subrecipients in the Title X program based on factors unrelated to the providers’ ability to provide the services required under Title X effectively. In at least several instances, this has led to disruption of services or reduction of services where a public entity, such as a state health department, holds a Title X grant and makes 21 subawards to subrecipients for the provision of services. In response to these actions, this proposed rule requires that any Title X recipient subawarding funds for the provision of Title X services not prohibit a potential subrecipient from participating for reasons unrelated to its ability to provide services effectively.

“Explain to me why a woman going to a federally qualified health center that has the Title X grant is gaining access because the grant just went away and went to the Planned Parenthood 5 miles away. That’s what they’re saying,” Donovan said.

Federally qualified health centers provide comprehensive health care to millions of uninsured, working poor, and jobless Americans each year. In addition to providing obstetrician-gynecologist services, federally qualified health centers offer a variety of primary and secondary services. For this reason, Donovan argues women are better off visiting one of these centers to obtain comprehensive health care.

“It certainly is a pro-life issue because Planned Parenthood is so identified with abortion,” he said, “but it’s also much more than that.”

The Daily Signal contacted the National Association of Community Health Centers, which represents 1,200 health centers across the U.S., but the organization declined to comment.

Donovan said he can’t explain why community health centers wouldn’t want to speak out about the grant money they stand to lose but said he “would hope we hear more complaints by them.”

Groups like the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all came out in support of the Obama administration’s proposal, arguing the rule is “consistent in their efforts to ensure effective and accessible reproductive health care for all populations.” (For more from the author of “Pro-Life Groups Fight Obama Administration’s ‘Parting Gift’ to Planned Parenthood” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Obama Political Aides Get Preference Over Veterans for Government Jobs

/0 Comments/in , /by

A disabled veteran didn’t get a job he sought in a federal agency, although he was qualified for the position and was supposed to receive preference. The job went instead to a political appointee of the Obama administration.

This was just one instance in which a nonpartisan government investigation found agencies didn’t follow the rules in hiring one-fourth of all the President Barack Obama political appointees who will be settled in career posts after a new president is sworn in Jan. 20.

One Senate committee chairman said the Obama administration’s failure to follow procedures is “troubling,” while another said the administration “should ensure fairness and competition” in filling jobs.

The disabled veteran applied for a job at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

That FDIC was supposed to get approval from the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the federal workforce, before passing over the veteran in March 2010 in favor of the Obama appointee. The personnel agency has purview over “burrowing,” the term generally used to describe a political appointee moving to a career position in the civil service.

Noting that disabled veterans have preference for federal jobs under the law, the Office of Personnel Management in May 2011 flagged the case and “subsequently instructed FDIC to take several corrective actions,” according to a Government Accountability Office report.

Ultimately, however, the office approved the political appointee’s transition to the career job, the report says.

Although political appointees are allowed to make the transition to career federal jobs, under the law they are supposed to go through the same merit-based selection process as other applicants.

The GAO determined that federal agencies didn’t follow procedures to avoid favoritism in hiring a quarter of Obama’s political appointees for career positions. The report sampled the actions of 30 federal agencies in such “conversions” from Jan. 1, 2010, to Oct. 1, 2015.

“The practice of burrowing in threatens the integrity of the federal workforce, where employees need to be hired based on merit and not on partisan political beliefs,” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said in a statement.

“I was particularly disappointed to see the Department of Homeland Security reporting the highest number of appointee-to-career employee conversions,” Johnson said. “It is critical that the administration take steps to ensure fairness and competition in federal service.”

Unlike political appointees, federal workers in the civil service system are hired through a merit system, are difficult to fire, and carry over in changes of administrations, Republican or Democrat.

In other cases, the GAO report says:

• The Department of Education in March 2011 “gave the political appointee an unfair advantage in the hiring process by manipulating the requirements of the career position to align with the employee’s background.”

• In April 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services hired a political appointee “who did not qualify” and “improperly” removed from consideration an applicant with a veterans preference.

• The Food and Drug Administration in December 2012 “applied an overly restrictive definition of specialized experience” that screened out two qualified applicants with veterans preference status before selecting a political appointee.

The GAO, reviewing the 30 federal agencies, found 69 individuals moved from political to career positions over the five years. These agencies did not always get the necessary final approval from the Office of Personnel Management, the report says:

Specifically, 14 of the 30 agencies reported numbers of political conversions to GAO that were different from the numbers that OPM reported to GAO. In most cases, the differences in the two data submissions were off by one conversion except at two agencies—the departments of Homeland Security and Commerce—where they were off by six and two conversions, respectively.

Six Cabinet-level departments and another agency accounted for almost half of the conversions of political appointees to civil service jobs, according to the report. Homeland Security had nine, Justice had seven, Defense and Treasury had five each, and Health and Human Services and the FDIC had four each.

The GAO report continues:

Of the agencies that implemented political conversions during the review period, eight agencies implemented 17 conversions without receiving prior approval from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as required by OPM policy. OPM completed post-appointment reviews for 13 of these 17 political conversions, approving nine and denying four.

It took the Office of Personnel Management about one year to identify conversions it should have reviewed, the report says.

Occasionally, an OPM spokeswoman said, agencies move political appointees into career posts without first submitting the change to the personnel agency for review. These transitions can slip past the proper review process.

“Each year, some cases are not submitted to OPM for pre-appointment review,” the spokeswoman told The Daily Signal in an email, adding:

We usually identify those cases when we run quarterly reports on appointments meeting the criteria for our review. We compare the list of appointments to those cases we reviewed. When we find an appointment we did not review, we notify the employing agency that they must submit the case file to us for a post-appointment review. In other cases, the agencies identify their own error and submit the case to us post-appointment.

The FDIC has not responded to phone and email inquiries from The Daily Signal regarding the specific case of the disabled veteran who was denied a job later given to a political appointee.

The findings should raise concerns about political cronyism, said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

“One of the reasons the federal government has laws on merit-based hiring is to prevent cronyism and political favoritism,” Thune said in a statement. “GAO’s finding that the Obama administration hasn’t consistently followed these rules is troubling.”

In some cases when the Office of Personnel Management determined an agency didn’t follow the rules, it reopened a hiring decision for other applicants, according to the GAO report. In other cases, the personnel office referred the matter for investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an independent investigative agency that primarily safeguards the merit system and government whistleblowers.

The Daily Signal has sought comment from the Office of Personnel Management, which said it would be forthcoming.

About 3,200 political appointees are among the 2.69 million nonmilitary employees of the executive branch. Of those 3,200, 158 were Bill Clinton appointees and 135 were George W. Bush appointees, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

A similar GAO report in June 2010 reviewed conversions to civil service jobs that occurred from May 2005 to May 2009—most of which came under the second term of the Bush administration. It also found lapses in adhering to policy.

Democrats raised significant concerns about conversions in 2008, the final year of the Bush administration, which saw about 26.

In 1883, Congress passed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act to stop raw political appointments, known as the spoils system, from filling all federal government jobs. The law introduced the merit system to hiring practices and made numerous positions untouchable once filled.

Civil service law has been updated several times, but the basics remain the same. The law requires that most federal employees be hired based on skills, knowledge, and ability. The law prohibits favoritism.

Samuel Schumach, press secretary for the Office of Personnel Management, previously told The Daily Signal the agency doesn’t have a way to determine how many Obama political appointees have or will apply for civil service employment. But summarizing the process, he said in an email:

If an agency selects a current or former political appointee (in the last five years), the agency is required to seek Office of Personnel Management review and approval prior to appointing them. [The Office of Personnel Management] will review the hiring action to ensure it is free from political influence and meets merit system principles. If we cannot conclude the action is free from political influence and meets merit system principles, we will deny the request to appoint the individual and may refer the matter to the Office of Special Counsel for further investigation.

The GAO report found that officials did not follow the procedure described by Schumach in one-fourth of the cases reviewed.

Separately, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has asked 23 executive agencies to account for the number of political appointees seeking career government jobs.

“Hiring decisions must be free from political interference, legitimate, and justified,” Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said in a statement. “OPM should fully embrace GAO’s recommendation for a more stringent process to verify all conversions are appropriate. Fair and open competition is central to the integrity of a merit-based federal workforce.” (For more from the author of “How Obama Political Aides Get Preference Over Veterans for Government Jobs” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

4 Times Conservatives Lost a Major Supreme Court Case by a Single Vote

/0 Comments/in , /by

Sunday night’s second presidential debate underscored the importance of the next Supreme Court justice, as the candidates and questioners alike recognized that the fate of the federal courts rests in the next president’s hands.

The high court has been closely divided on many contentious issues in recent years, and the next justice could change the development and application of the law for decades. As former Attorney General Ed Meese has stated, “No president exercises any power more far-reaching, more likely to influence his legacy, than the selection of federal judges.”

Although the Framers of the Constitution envisioned the judiciary as the “least dangerous branch,” the judges who populate its ranks wield tremendous power to decide cases that affect the daily lives of millions of Americans.

While each branch of government has an independent duty to uphold the Constitution, the Supreme Court has grabbed power by declaring that its decisions are the supreme law of the land, and the other branches have largely acceded to these claims. This is why every vote matters in cases before the Supreme Court.

Often, significant cases are decided by just one vote. While the justices agree in many cases, the next president must consider that one person could make a big difference in nearly a quarter of cases that the court decides by a 5-4 margin each term.

Consider some of the important cases that struck a blow to the Constitution over the past 10 years where one justice was the deciding vote:

In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court interpreted the takings clause of the Constitution to allow the government to seize citizens’ homes—not to build a road or fulfill some other public use as is required by the Fifth Amendment, but to transfer the property to a private corporation because it could pay more taxes.

In Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court extended the right of habeas corpus to the Guantanamo Bay detainees, usurping national security authority.

In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court instituted one of the largest tax increases in history when it strained the Affordable Care Act’s text to uphold the individual health care mandate as a valid exercise of Congress’ taxing power.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to marriage that includes same-sex couples in a decision so unmoored from the text of the Constitution that even supporters of the ruling have described it as unintelligible and poorly reasoned.

Now consider some of the significant wins for the Constitution where one justice cast the deciding vote:

In McDonald v. City of Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court overturned Chicago and Washington, D.C.’s, virtual bans on handguns, upholding the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

In Town of Greece v. Galloway and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court respected religious freedom, upholding a town council’s right to begin a meeting with a prayer, and stopping the government from requiring business owners to pay for certain abortion-inducing drugs and devices in their health care plans against their religious beliefs.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court tossed out unconstitutional restrictions on political speech and campaign contributions.

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which set forth an outdated coverage formula that was used to determine which states needed to get preapproval from the federal government before making any changes in their voting laws, was unconstitutional.

On the occasion of nominating Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia, President Ronald Reagan reminded us that Supreme Court justices “must not only be jurists of the highest competence; they must also be attentive to the rights specifically guaranteed in our Constitution and to the proper role of the courts in our democratic system.” The Supreme Court is only one vote away from upholding or rejecting these principles.

To learn more about the proper role of judges in our government, the road to confirmation for those nominated to be judges, and close cases in which a single Supreme Court justice made the difference in cases of incredible significance, check out The Heritage Foundation’s new booklet “Supreme Consequences: How a President’s Bad Judicial Appointments Threaten Your Liberty.“ (For more from the author of “4 Times Conservatives Lost a Major Supreme Court Case by a Single Vote” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FBI, DOJ Roiled by Comey, Lynch Decision to Let Clinton Slide by on Emails, Says Insider

/0 Comments/in , /by

The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”

“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.” (Read more from “FBI, DOJ Roiled by Comey, Lynch Decision to Let Clinton Slide by on Emails, Says Insider” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Mocks ‘Demon’ Talk by Sniffing Himself

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Obama on Tuesday mocked conservative radio host Alex Jones for accusing him and Hillary Clinton of being demons.

“I was reading the other day there’s a guy on the radio who apparently – [Donald] Trump’s on his show frequently – who said me and Hillary demons,” he told listeners at a rally for Clinton in Greensboro, N.C.

“[Jones] said we smell like sulfur,” Obama added, pausing to smell himself as the audience cheered and whistled. “Ain’t that something?”

Obama burst into laughter before criticizing remarks like Jones’ for undermining the harmony between Americans.

“Democracy does not work if you just say stuff like that. Apparently there are people who believe that stuff. I mean, c’mon people.” (Read more from “Obama Mocks ‘Demon’ Talk by Sniffing Himself” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.