Trump Decides to Keep Obama’s Radical LGBT Special Envoy, Aiding the Destruction of Traditional Cultures, Imposing American Perversity, Worldwide

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump is keeping in place a special international LGBT “envoy” established by the Obama administration to promote acceptance of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism abroad in the name of U.S. foreign policy.

The reinstatement of open homosexual Randy Berry as Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons was reported Monday by the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade. It is another blow to pro-family advocates who oppose the LGBT agenda and are counting on Trump to root out homosexual and abortion activists from the foreign affairs bureaucracy after eight years of Obama’s leftist policies.

“Keeping Berry only signals to the world that the extreme agenda of the Obama years is still deeply entrenched in the State Department,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

A career foreign service officer who speaks Spanish and Arabic, Berry was given the international “LGBT Envoy” position in 2015. The appointment delighted homosexual activists, who in recent years have turned their attention to less developed nations overseas after accomplishing much of their agenda in the West.

Berry is a committed pro-LGTQ activist who is dedicated to seeing other nations adopt the postmodern Western legal system that grants “rights,” including “marriage,” based on homosexuality and extreme gender deviance. In December, he joined other openly homosexual U.S. diplomats in speaking at an “LGBT Leaders” conference in D.C. sponsored by the Gay & Lesbian Victory Institute. (Read more from “Trump Decides to Keep Obama’s Radical LGBT Special Envoy, Aiding the Destruction of Traditional Cultures, Imposing American Perversity, Worldwide” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Obama Is Scheming to Sabotage Trump’s Presidency

/0 Comments/in , , /by

When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.

In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.

Since Donald Trump’s election, this little-known but well-funded protesting arm has beefed up staff and ramped up recruitment of young liberal activists, declaring on its website, “We’re not backing down.” Determined to salvage Obama’s legacy,”it’s drawing battle lines on immigration, ObamaCare, race relations and climate change.

Obama is intimately involved in OFA operations and even tweets from the group’s account. In fact, he gave marching orders to OFA foot soldiers following Trump’s upset victory. (Read more from “How Obama Is Scheming to Sabotage Trump’s Presidency” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

UNBELIEVABLE: Far Left Trump Haters Calling for Genocide Against White People, Press Totally Silent

/0 Comments/in , , /by

As Americans who recognize the equal place under God of every person, and under law of every citizen, whatever his background, would we find it acceptable if conservative organizations started cooperating with white nationalists?

What if Republicans organized protests against left-wing campus speakers employing violent gangs of whites who wanted to stop non-whites from having children, because they regard other races as a plague on our species?

What if a conservative newspaper employed a spokesman for a radical white racist group, and he wrote on social media that all black men are a threat to public safety? Or if the co-founder of that organization described non-whites as genetically defective, the result of destructive mutations? Imagine if groups with racist agendas like these had instigated riots after the election of President Obama.

No one would need to wait for the social justice left to be outraged at such uncivil, hateful, and destructive abuse of free speech. People from all across the spectrum, including every Christian conservative leader in the country, would step forth to distance themselves from these ideas, and demand that the relevant GOP officials and conservative leaders who’d cooperated with those racists be removed from their positions.

So why are we hearing crickets from Democratic and liberal leaders about the thuggish tactics of the “Antifa” (supposedly anti-fascist) demonstrators who rioted at UC Berkeley when Milo Yiannopolis tried to speak by invitation? Since these groups’ attack on Constitutionally protected free political speech at a college campus doesn’t seem to bother anyone on the high-minded left, maybe this news will: The “Antifa” group in Seattle appears to have posted fliers warning white people not to have children:

Just an isolated incident that might have been a fake? Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so. But there’s evidence that such attitudes go far beyond Seattle. The Toronto Sun reports that Yusra Khogali, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, revealed the same racist agenda, aimed at eliminating white people:

Yusra-Tweet

Even professional journalists feel emboldened to engage in such dangerous talk. Shaun King, a highly visible activist in Black Lives Matter who works for a mainstream liberal tabloid, The New York Daily News, responded to the appalling news that former Penn State athletic coach Jerry Sandusky’s son has been arrested for sexually abusing children (as his father did) with this uplifting reflection:

We have already seen that colleges are removing writers like Shakespeare and Milton from reading lists, solely because they are white men. MTV published a public service announcement in which non-whites and women told white men how to rectify their misbehavior in public. (You might enjoy The Stream‘s tongue-in-cheek response: “My 2017 Resolutions for Minorities and Women.)

But really, there’s nothing funny at all about this kind of divisive rhetoric, or the dangerous undercurrents of group hatred that underlie it. What we’re seeing is the tip of the iceberg, the statements and actions of those who feel bold and secure enough to vent their secret feelings in public. Such open expression of ethnic hatred, unrebuked and virtually unanswered, is profoundly destructive. It’s the kind of talk we saw in Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s, as the prelude to organized violence.

The whole point of the Civil Rights Movement was to remove the question of race from issues of citizenship, to exorcise at last the demon of tribalism from American public life. Those claiming to speak on behalf of minority groups, who lapse into language that would have made racists like Margaret Sanger proud, are betraying everything that Civil Rights demonstrators worked, fought, and died for. (For more from the author of “Far Left Trump Haters Calling for Genocide Against White People” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump, Netanyahu to Reset US-Israeli Relations After Strained 8 Years

/0 Comments/in , /by

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House on Wednesday will mark a chance for the United States and Israel to renew a relationship that had turned tumultuous in the eight years under President Barack Obama’s administration, experts say.

“It probably won’t take long to return to the warm relationship that has characterized the U.S.-Israeli relationship before,” said Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, in a phone interview with The Daily Signal.

Israel strongly opposed the Obama administration-led Iran nuclear deal, which President Donald Trump is against. Also, the Obama administration abstained from a vote on the United Nations Security Council condemning Israel for its settlements.

Schanzer believes both the Iran deal and the settlements issue can be addressed without too much controversy.

“With the settlements, there was common ground reached by Bush and Ariel Sharon, which allowed Israelis to continue to build in areas that already have significant Israeli population,” Schanzer said, referring to former President George W. Bush and Sharon, a former Israeli prime minister.

Schanzer added it might be difficult to undo the entire Iran nuclear deal, which relieved sanctions on the country, and was agreed upon by the United States and five other countries. However, it’s likely Trump will enforce the agreement in a way Obama would not.

“It will be about rigorous enforcement of the deal and not allowing Iran to cheat even in minor ways,” Schanzer said. “The Obama administration wouldn’t enforce this out of fear the deal would unravel. Trump doesn’t care about Obama’s foreign policy legacy.”

If the deal is enforced, Iran might be the country that walks away, said Jim Phillips, senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at The Heritage Foundation.

“It’s difficult to walk away from the deal now without putting Iran in a better place [than before the deal was made],” Phillips told The Daily Signal. “If the U.S. is out, it’s very unlikely that Russia or China would reimpose international sanctions on Iran.”

Phillips said with vigorous enforcement, Iran is likely to violate the deal, which will mean sanctions should be imposed again.

Though Obama and Netanyahu had a rocky relationship, Trump called Netanyahu during his first week in office.

Trump reportedly said settlements might not help the peace process. Israel’s parliament voted in favor of continuing settlements.

Another major issue could be moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

“Israel supports the move and the U.S. wants to do it in a way that respects security for all in the region,” Schanzer said. “For the U.S., it’s not as complicated as it might seem. It is a very achievable goal if the administration remains committed to it.”

Phillips believes the administration should move slowly on this matter.

“The administration has signaled it will move very cautiously, as they should, because this has the potential to be an explosive issue and could ignite a firestorm even with some allies in the Middle East,” Phillips said. “I would think they will do that this year, but maybe not in the next few months.” (For more from the author of “Trump, Netanyahu to Reset US-Israeli Relations After Strained 8 Years” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

States Cry out for Relief From Judicial Tyranny. Will Congress Respond?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last week, the Arizona House of Representatives passed a House Concurrent Memorial urging Congress “to divide the Ninth Circuit into two separate circuits,” citing a long list of systemic flaws and alleged abuses the court has visited on the people of the Grand Canyon State (editor’s note: better known as judicial tyranny).

“Arizona’s values and laws have long been under assault from an appeals court that is overburdened, overturned far too often, and devoid of justice for many of its petitioners,” reads a statement from Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. about the memorial, who has introduced legislation aimed at remedying the situation.

The bill, H.R 250, would split the more conservative western states from their far Left-leaning coastal counterparts in order to free them “from the burdensome and undue influence of the 9th Circuit Court” with the creation of a new 12th Circuit court.

Currently the circuit is composed of nine Western states and the territory of Guam. What this means in practice is, thanks to blue slip tradition in the judiciary committee, liberal jurists from California, Oregon and Washington end up ruling on cases in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, and Montana. A similar bill in the Senate would also split the circuit, but disagrees on whether or not Washington state should remain part of the Ninth.

“The Ninth Circuit cannot handle the number of states currently entrapped within its jurisdiction, causing access to justice to be delayed,” reads a release from Biggs’ office. “Worse still, the Ninth Circuit has the highest reversal rate in the country, topping 75 percent.”

Resting on the argument that the circuit is too big and too slow with moving its caseload, the press release stops short of saying that the Ninth Circuit encapsulates nearly the entire mountain time zone inside a jurisprudential clown show. But it does that, too.

For example, a week before all eyes were fixed on the three-judge panel that kept in place the Temporary Restraining Order, the same court denied an en banc hearing to the state of Arizona, which it previously forced to issue drivers’ licenses to illegals under Obama’s DACA executive amnesty program.

“Arizona has no cognizable interest in making the distinction it has for drivers’ licenses purposes,” said Judge Harry Pregerson on Feb. 3. “The federal government, not the states, holds exclusive authority concerning direct matters of immigration law.” Twenty-four judges concurred with the ruling; a mere five dissented.

Perhaps Judge Pregerson just forgot that immigration law is the purview of Congress – who repeatedly struck down the DREAM Act – not the executive branch, as Judge Alex Kozinski points out in the dissent. But such is par for the course in the nutty Ninth Circuit.

It makes complete sense that the people of Arizona, and probably the citizens of other states in the region, are tired of far-Left social transformation without representation and calling out for relief from it. The only question is whether they’ll get it. (For more from the author of “Arizona Cries out for Relief From Judicial Tyranny. Will Congress Respond?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Note to the Left: Four Years Ago, Conservatives Were Just as Depressed

/0 Comments/in , /by

Here’s a news flash for Democrats and other Americans on the left: Four years ago, when Barack Obama was re-elected president, conservatives were just as depressed as you are now that Hillary Clinton lost and Donald Trump won.

I describe this as news because this undoubtedly surprises many of you. You probably never gave a moment’s thought to how depressed conservatives were in 2012. (Why would you? Unlike you, we shun hysteria.) But believe me — we were.

Many of us believed that President Obama was doing great damage to America. Now we are convinced that he did more damage to America domestically, to America’s position the world and to the world at large than any other two-term president.

He left office with racial tensions — many of which he exacerbated — greater than at any time since the civil rights era half a century ago. He left the world’s worst regimes — Iran, China, Russia, North Korea and radical Islamist terror groups — stronger and more aggressive than before he became president. Economic growth never rose above 3 percent, a first for a two-term president. He nearly doubled the national debt and had little to nothing to show for it. Obamacare hurt more people financially than it helped medically, including physicians. More people than ever are on government aid. The list is far longer than this.

Moreover, just like most Democrats in 2016, most Republicans in 2012 expected to win. (Read more from the author of “Note to the Left: Four Years Ago, Conservatives Were Just as Depressed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Liberals Love to Celebrate Motherhood — When It’s Glamorous

/0 Comments/in , /by

Fans everywhere raved about Beyoncé’s performance at the Grammy Awards Sunday night.

Just weeks ago, the singer had announced via Instagram that she is expecting twins with her husband Jay Z. Her first performance since the announcement was an obvious celebration of motherhood. She dressed as Oshun, the Yoruba goddess of fertility, her golden gown highlighting a sizable baby bump. Over the space of two songs, she honored her own mother Tina Knowles and her five-year-old daughter Blue Ivy.

Even though British singer Adele ultimately bested Beyoncé for album of the year, the Lemonade artist’s performance dominated the evening buzz.

Celebrities and Media Praise Pregnant Beyoncé

The Hollywood Reporter compiled a list of breathless Tweets from the famous:

Media outlets like USA Today and Mic praised Beyoncé’s performance. The New York Times called it a “jaw-dropping, multimedia homage to motherhood.” The Associated Press acknowledged the star’s celebration of “her femininity and motherhood,” saying she “invoked images of both a goddess and the Virgin Mary.” The Washington Post called the performance “an ode to womanhood.”

The “Single Ladies” singer even garnered praise from some pro-choice organizations, including the Women’s March, which unceremoniously shunned pro-life groups that applied to participate in last month’s historic march in Washington, D.C. NARAL, the organization dedicated to protecting and expanding “reproductive freedom for all,” shared Mic’s praise of Beyoncé’s “ode to black motherhood.”

The Sad Hypocrisy

Don’t get me wrong — Beyoncé definitely deserves kudos for pulling off yet another compelling performance, complete with complex multimedia choreography, dance moves and even chair stunts — all while visibly carrying twins.

It’s sad, however, that so many of the people, organizations and even media outlets gushing over Beyoncé and her pregnancy are so quick to defend abortion.

In fact, the reaction to Beyoncé’s performance underscores the very hypocrisy that plagues pro-choice advocates. When babies are wanted — like when they belong to cultural idol Queen Bey — those babies are adored. Fans can’t wait to see what she will name them. They’re eager to speculate whether the twins will be boys, girls, or one of each. They aren’t talking about Beyoncé’s “fetuses,” as several pro-life outlets have already pointed out. No, these are Beyoncé’s babies.

But what about babies who aren’t wanted? Who prove a hardship? Or when the circumstances of their conception are painful or unplanned? When that happens, the same people currently elated over Beyoncé’s pregnancy will march in the streets demanding unlimited access to abortion. All of a sudden, to equate pregnancy with womanhood is offensive. Saying “babies” instead of “fetuses” is backward. And anyone who dares to suggest that all unborn life should be protected is silenced.

When You’re Beyoncé

This hypocritical message from the Leftist elite is incredibly harmful to women — especially the everyday, underprivileged, and often minority women they profess to care so much about.

When you’re Beyoncé, motherhood is glamorous. You can post photos of your growing belly on Instagram and garner over 10 million likes. You can dress up as a golden, glowing goddess of fertility and perform for millions on live TV. You can slip into a sparkling red gown after a team of professionals has freshened up your pregnant body and still have paparazzi rave about how “smoking hot” you are. And when you’re Beyoncé, you have all the resources, support, care and advice that money and adoration can buy.

I’m not undermining anything about Beyoncé’s motherhood. I’m just being honest. When you’re Beyoncé, it’s easier.

Most women aren’t Beyoncé. Many who get pregnant are underprivileged, with little money, no one to offer loving advice, and no partner to share the load of raising another human.

For those women, motherhood is not as glamorous as it is for Beyoncé. But it’s every bit as meaningful. The Left must not see that though, because its organizations such as Planned Parenthood target those women with zealous sales pitches for abortion.

Those mothers and their unborn babies need all the love, care and assistance the rest of us can offer — not the tragic “way out” so often advocated by wealthy coastal elites.

If we as a culture reserve our celebration of motherhood for the rich and famous, then we’re sending a dishonest and harmful message to millions of everyday women and girls. Normal motherhood isn’t glittery, glamorous, or Insta-famous. But it’s every bit as good, valuable and worth it.

It’s nice to see celebrities so supportive of Beyoncé and her unborn children. If only they supported everyday expectant mothers with the same enthusiasm. (For more from “Liberals Love to Celebrate Motherhood — When It’s Glamorous” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Progress So Far on 2016 Promises

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump hasn’t yet repealed and replaced Obamacare, or achieved 4 percent economic growth just shy of one month in office. But the new president has begun to deliver on several other campaign promises.

Trump issued executive orders to begin constructing the border wall and curb burdensome Obamacare regulations until the law is replaced. He also issued executive orders and took other actions to try to boost the economy by reducing regulation and promoting manufacturing.

Here’s a look at progress and achievements in three broad categories for action that Trump routinely talked about during the campaign, including a total of 13 promises:

Make America Work Again

Promise 1: More American Jobs

Trump, on Jan. 27, announced the Manufacturing Jobs Initiative to gather “some of the world’s most successful and creative business leaders to share their experience and gain their insights.”

Trump hosted Intel CEO Brian Krzanich on Feb. 8 at the White House. Krzanich announced the company will build a factory in Chandler, Arizona, that will create 3,000 jobs and another 10,000 “indirect” jobs for area residents.

Promise 2: Energy Independence

Just four days after taking office, Trump issued presidential memorandums on two major oil pipelines. He signed one to expedite building the Dakota Access pipeline, which the Obama administration had stalled, and another to encourage construction of the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, which the Obama administration had halted.

Promise 3: Economic Growth

This promise centers on tax reform, regulatory reform, and what the administration calls sensible infrastructure.

Trump signed a bill into law Feb. 14, voiding a Securities and Exchange Commission rule requiring fossil fuel companies and mining companies to disclose production-related payments to foreign governments. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich.

Trump issued a presidential memorandum for a regulatory freeze until the agency head appointed by the president has reviewed the regulation.

Trump made building or repairing infrastructure and boosting manufacturing central to his campaign.

On the same day as the two pipeline memorandums, Trump also issued an executive order “expediting environmental reviews and approvals for high priority infrastructure projects.”

In another presidential memorandum, Trump directed departments and agencies to support expanded manufacturing through streamlining permitting reviews and reducing regulations.

On Jan. 30, just 10 days into his presidency, Trump issued an executive order requiring that for every new regulation the government imposes, it must rescind two.

A few days later, Feb. 3, Trump issued an executive order creating “core principles for regulating the United States financial system.”

Promise 4: Help the Inner Cities

This category includes law enforcement, jobs, and school choice. On Feb. 9, Trump issued an executive order directing the attorney general to establish a task force on reducing crime and increasing public safety.

The same day, he issued an executive order to “strengthen enforcement of federal law to thwart transnational criminal organizations” such as gangs, cartels, and racketeers.

Make America Safe Again

Promise 5: Border Security, ‘Extreme Vetting’

Trump has indicated he will ask Congress for an initial payment to build a wall at the border with Mexico—a project already authorized under the 2006 Secure Fence Act. After that, he said, he will seek reimbursement from the Mexican government.

On Jan. 25, Trump signed a series of executive orders regarding immigration, his signature issue during the campaign. One order called for “immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism.”

Trump also issued an order scaling back funding for “sanctuary cities,” the term for municipalities that refuse to cooperate with federal officials in enforcing immigration law.

Two days later, Trump signed an executive order restricting immigration from seven terrorism-prone Middle Eastern countries, probably the most controversial action of his presidency thus far.

The administration calls this approach “extreme vetting,” but critics charge it is a “Muslim ban.” The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco last week upheld a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the measure.

Promise 6: Strengthen America’s Role in the World

Trump signed a memorandum Jan. 27 calling for “rebuilding of the U.S. armed forces.”

On Jan. 28, Trump signed a memorandum requiring a comprehensive plan to defeat the Islamic State, the terrorist army also known as ISIS, by the end of February. He directed that it include new defense strategies and any needed changes in public diplomacy efforts.

Since his inauguration Jan. 20, Trump has hosted British Prime Minister Theresa May, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the White House. On Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to visit.

Promise 7: End the Iran Nuclear Deal

Though it wasn’t related directly to the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration, the Trump White House signaled a strong shift in attitude toward Iran.

The Trump administration, through the Treasury Department, on Feb. 4 imposed 25 sanctions on individuals and companies with ties to Iran in retaliation for the Islamic regime’s ballistic missile tests.

Make America Great Again

Promise 8: Repeal Obamacare

Hours after being sworn in, Trump issued an executive order directing agencies to act to minimize the burdens of the Affordable Care Act as much as possible by law, until Congress votes to repeal and replace the health care law.

Promise 9: ‘Drain the Swamp’

On Jan. 28, Trump issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to demand “ethics commitments” from employees hired on or after Jan. 20. This means these employees are committed contractually not to become lobbyists within five years of leaving government, and never to work as a lobbyist for a foreign entity after leaving government service.

In a rarity this early in his presidency, Trump on Feb. 4 signed a bill passed by Congress to allow the Government Accountability Office to gather more records from federal agencies during investigations.

Promise 10: Reverse Executive Overreach, Reduce Size of Government

Three days after his inauguration, Trump signed a memorandum to freeze federal hiring except for reasons of national security and public safety.

Promise 11: Put America First

This includes promoting American exceptionalism and founding principles. Three days after taking office, Trump signed a memorandum ordering withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal with 11 other countries. The Obama administration entered into the pact but the Senate had not ratified it. Many Republicans supported the trade deal and many Democrats opposed it, but lawmakers’ positions did not fall along party lines.

When Trump issued executive orders on the Keystone and Dakota oil pipelines, he issued another order requiring new pipelines to be constructed with steel and other raw materials made in the United States.

Promise 12: Nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the Scalia Mold

Trump vowed to name a like-minded successor to Justice Antonin Scalia, who died a year ago Monday. On Jan. 31, Trump announced his nomination of 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy left by Scalia’s unexpected death. Trump pledged during the campaign to nominate someone with a judicial philosophy similar to Scalia’s originalism.

Promise 13: End Common Core, Restore Local Control of Education

Trump has yet to take action on this front, but the Senate confirmed his nominee for education secretary, Betsy DeVos, and she started work Feb. 7.

DeVos was the head of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, founded by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a strong proponent of Common Core. DeVos has primarily advocated school choice programs to compete with failing public schools.

After Trump nominated her for the position, DeVos explained that she had not actively supported Common Core.

“Have organizations that I have been a part of supported Common Core? Of course. But that’s not my position. Sometimes it’s not just students who need to do their homework,” DeVos wrote. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Progress So Far on 2016 Promises” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Legislation Would Curb Restrictions on Political Speech in Churches

/0 Comments/in , /by

Congress is taking aim at a 1950s-era law that restricts the free speech of churches and other nonprofits after President Donald Trump recently condemned it.

Trump pledged at the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this month, “I will get rid of, and totally destroy, the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.

Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., was a pastor for 25 years before serving in Congress, which is one reason he favors doing away with the Johnson Amendment. The law threatens the tax-exempt status of nonprofits, including churches, for engaging in certain political speech.

“For too long, the IRS has used the Johnson Amendment to silence and threaten religious institutions and charitable entities,” Hice said in a public statement. “As a minister who has experienced intimidation from the IRS firsthand, I know just how important it is to ensure that our churches and nonprofit organizations are allowed the same fundamental rights as every citizen of this great nation.”

Hice and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., announced their bill to repeal the law the same day Trump pledged to at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Repealing the Johnson Amendment was included in the GOP platform adopted at the 2016 Republican National Convention that nominated Trump.

The bill would amend the U.S. tax code to allow 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations to speak out on political matters so long as the commentary is made in the ordinary course of the carrying out of a group’s tax-exempt purpose, and as long as no expenditures are made to promote the message that might relate to a candidate.

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., the co-chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, has a companion Senate bill, which he said is crafted to ensure more political speech rights, but also won’t allow churches and nonprofits to become political action committees.

“The Free Speech Fairness Act is needed to prevent government intrusion and suppression of free speech by removing a restriction on speech that has existed since 1954,” Lankford said of his bill in a public statement. “The First Amendment right of free speech and right to practice any faith, or no faith, are foundational American values that must extend to everyone, whether they are a pastor, social worker, or any charity employee or volunteer.”

However, Rob Boston, spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, insisted repealing the Johnson Amendment could unleash money in politics and corrupt the purpose of churches.

“This is an issue closely identified with the religious right, but it would affect every organization with 501(c)(3) status, not just houses of worship,” Boston told The Daily Signal in phone interview. “You might see sham nonprofits start up to funnel money to campaigns. Tax-exempt status is a benefit, but it does come with conditions.”

Boston said this is a question of bad policy rather than a constitutional matter.

“I don’t think [getting rid of the Johnson Amendment] would be an Establishment Clause violation unless the repeal was limited to houses of worship,” Boston said.

A leaked draft executive order from the White House showed the Trump administration was considering an inclusive order to recognize the right to religious expression, not just the right to worship. Once this was reported, several liberal groups stepped up to oppose the action.

A concern to some conservatives is that Trump will attempt to address the Johnson Amendment matter through an executive order, while ignoring other significant religious freedom concerns.

Melanie Israel, a research associate with the DeVos Center for Religious and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in a statement:

Should Trump issue an executive order that only addresses the Johnson Amendment, it would be a tremendous disappointment because the Johnson Amendment cannot be fully addressed by executive order and must ultimately be repealed by Congress. In the meantime, there are high-priority items that can be fixed by the text of the draft executive order earlier this month. Trump should move quickly to make good on the commitment that his administration will do ‘everything in its power’ to protect religious liberty. The draft copy of the leaked executive order is a good, lawful public policy that would ensure that the public square remains open to all religious voices, including those whose voices differ from the government’s view.

The Johnson Amendment was named after then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson, a Texas Democrat, in 1954. Johnson was the Senate minority leader at the time, and he and other lawmakers were concerned 501(c)(3) nonprofit groups would get involved in the elections on behalf of their opponents.

Just before the Senate’s summer recess, Johnson, who would go on to become vice president and later president, pushed through an amendment to rescind a charitable nonprofit’s tax-exempt status if such an organization—including churches—campaigned for or against a political candidate.

The text of the House and Senate bills protect liberal and conservative groups and churches of any leaning, said Travis Weber, director for the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council.

“This loosens up simple speech on churches or environmentalist nonprofits or other groups,” Weber told The Daily Signal. “Some might seize on this and say this repeal would be good for just Republicans or for Christian conservatives, but they aren’t looking at the law to see who it protects.” (For more from the author of “Legislation Would Curb Restrictions on Political Speech in Churches” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Lawmaker Faults GOP Leadership for Not Blocking DC Assisted Suicide Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republican leaders in the House and Senate don’t want to stand up for life by rejecting the legalization of physician-assisted suicide in the nation’s capital, a prominent conservative lawmaker said Tuesday.

“We disagree with the law,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said. “We disagree with the premise of what D.C. did, and we have the constitutional authority to disapprove it.”

Jordan spoke in response to a question from The Daily Signal at a monthly meeting between reporters and Republican House members called Conversations With Conservatives.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted 22-14 Monday night to block the District of Columbia’s assisted suicide law from going into effect Saturday. The D.C. Council passed the bill in December and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser signed it.

Jordan said the committee’s chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, doesn’t intend to send the resolution disapproving the city law to the full House for a vote.

A resolution of disapproval is an expedited way for Congress to invalidate a D.C. law.

The Constitution and the D.C. Home Rule Act give Congress jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. Congress may reject laws passed by the D.C. Council with enough votes in both the House and the Senate, if it does so within 30 congressional work days.

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., spearheaded opposition to the assisted suicide law in the Senate, and Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, is doing so in the House.

Both chambers have until Friday to reject the Death with Dignity Act of 2015 or it takes effect Saturday.

Either Chaffetz or House Speaker Paul Ryan may move the resolution toward a floor vote, Jordan noted to reporters, and that can be done within 24 hours of the committee vote.

“Right now the holdup is the chairman,” Jordan said. If Chaffetz doesn’t act, he added, “it is in essence denying every single [House] member a right they have under the rule to call up this particular resolution.”

In the Senate, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, would need to move a disapproval measure.

Unless the House adopts the resolution disapproving the assisted suicide law, the Senate can’t act and President Donald Trump can’t sign the measure.

Chaffetz’s office did not return an email Tuesday morning from The Daily Signal on the D.C. law.

Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also did not return emails seeking comment.

In an interview Tuesday afternoon with D.C. radio station WMAL-AM, Jordan said of the city’s law: “Congress has the ability to stop it and we’re not even going to let it get to the House floor.”

Lankford introduced his companion resolution Jan. 12.

“This resolution of disapproval responds to an action from the D.C. City Council and their mayor,” Lankford told The Daily Signal in a phone interview at the time. “Congress spoke in the 1990s actually forbidding assisted suicide within the District of Columbia. So that is something that has already been settled as an issue from Congress from decades ago.”

The city’s assisted suicide law would permit “an adult who has been diagnosed with a terminal disease, having less than six months to live, to receive a prescription for medication to end his or her life.”

The phrase “terminal disease” is dangerous, Lankford’s office argues, because it could be interpreted to mean illnesses such as diabetes and leukemia, which normally are fatal only if not treated.

Physician-assisted suicide was passed in California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington and legalized in Montana by a court ruling.

Compassion & Choices, which seeks legalization of assisted suicide across the nation, argues that terminally ill individuals should have the choice to “end their suffering if it becomes intolerable.”

“There are many people that have stated that [banning physician-assisted suicide] removes the ability for a doctor to be able to work with a family, to be able to make difficult life decisions about end-of-life choices,” Lankford said. “That is far from the truth. All of those things remain when a doctor and a family are working together to make difficult end-of-life decisions.”

A physician, Wenstrup said he has strong convictions about not legalizing physician-assisted suicide. In a statement provided last month to The Daily Signal, he said the D.C. law would limit health care options and suggested it could encourage suicide.

“Under this new law, if D.C. residents are not able to pay for health care out of pocket, they may find their options severely limited when facing a new diagnosis, suffering from a chronic illness, facing a disability, or struggling with mental illness,” Wenstrup said.

Stephanie Woodward, director of advocacy at the New York-based Center for Disability Rights, shares a similar sentiment.

“Any act proposing to legalize assisted suicide puts real lives at risk,” Woodward said in an email to The Daily Signal. “We have a profit-driven health care system where it is all too easy to say ‘no’ to covering expensive, life-prolonging treatment, and ‘yes’ to a cheap pill with a lethal impact.”

Some opponents of legalized assisted suicide say it might appeal to individuals who might not be able to pay for medical treatment.

This was the case for Stephanie Packer, whose insurance company refused to pay for chemotherapy treatment for cancer but told her it would cover the cost of physician-assisted suicide “with a copayment of $1.20” for the lethal drugs, according to the New York Post.

Physician-assisted suicide encroaches on the sanctity of life and fosters disrespect for life, Lankford told The Daily Signal.

“There should be a basic principle for life,” the Oklahoma Republican said. “This is not a medical issue as much as it is a suicide issue, and we think that we should build a culture of life within the country.” (For more from the author of “This Lawmaker Faults GOP Leadership for Not Blocking DC Assisted Suicide Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.