Supremes Join Trump to Stop Obama Power Grab

The Trump administration has worked virtually nonstop since the inauguration to unwind and withdraw some of the environmental campaigns launched by Barack Obama, and on Monday the Supreme Court joined in.

The justices ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot provide a hedge of protection preventing courts from reviewing its actions by requiring such appeals be heard only in some courts.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for the rule of law and for accountability in government,” said James S. Burling, of Pacific Legal Foundation.

His organization worked with farmers, ranchers and other landowners nationwide who wanted to fight the Obama-era Waters of the U.S. ruling . . .

“The EPA’s ‘waters of the United States’ rule may be the most brazen – and lawless – expansion of bureaucratic power in American history. The regulators who imposed it tried to shield it from review by limiting opportunities for the public to bring challenges. The Supreme Court struck a blow for liberty by rejecting this ploy and guaranteeing access to justice for the EPA’s victims,” Burling said. (Read more from “Supremes Join Trump to Stop Obama Power Grab” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Scientific Breakthroughs Are Having a Huge Impact on the Abortion Debate

. . .Activists like McGuire believe it makes perfect sense to be pro-science and pro-life. While she opposes abortion on moral grounds, she believes studies of fetal development, improved medical techniques, and other advances anchor the movement’s arguments in scientific fact. “The pro-life message has been, for the last 40-something years, that the fetus … is a life, and it is a human life worthy of all the rights the rest of us have,” she said. “That’s been more of an abstract concept until the last decade or so.” But, she added, “when you’re seeing a baby sucking its thumb at 18 weeks, smiling, clapping,” it becomes “harder to square the idea that that 20-week-old, that unborn baby or fetus, is discardable.”

Scientific progress is remaking the debate around abortion. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, the case that led the way to legal abortion, it pegged most fetuses’ chance of viable life outside the womb at 28 weeks; after that point, it ruled, states could reasonably restrict women’s access to the procedure. Now, with new medical techniques, doctors are debating whether that threshold should be closer to 22 weeks. Like McGuire, today’s prospective moms and dads can learn more about their baby earlier into a pregnancy than their parents or grandparents. And like McGuire, when they see their fetus on an ultrasound, they may see humanizing qualities like smiles or claps, even if most scientists see random muscle movements.

These advances fundamentally shift the moral intuition around abortion. New technology makes it easier to apprehend the humanity of a growing child and imagine a fetus as a creature with moral status. Over the last several decades, pro-life leaders have increasingly recognized this and rallied the power of scientific evidence to promote their cause. They have built new institutions to produce, track, and distribute scientifically crafted information on abortion. They hungrily follow new research in embryology. They celebrate progress in neonatology as a means to save young lives. New science is “instilling a sense of awe that we never really had before at any point in human history,” McGuire said. “We didn’t know any of this.”

In many ways, this represents a dramatic reversal; pro-choice activists have long claimed science for their own side. The Guttmacher Institute, a research and advocacy organization that defends abortion and reproductive rights, has exercised a near-monopoly over the data of abortion, serving as a source for supporters and opponents alike. And the pro-choice movement’s rhetoric has matched its resources: Its proponents often describe themselves as the sole defenders of women’s welfare and scientific consensus. The idea that life begins at conception “goes against legal precedent, science, and public opinion,” said Ilyse Hogue, the president of the abortion-advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a recent op-ed for CNBC. Members of the pro-life movement are “not really anti-abortion,” she wrote in another piece. “They are against [a] world where women can contribute equally and chart our own destiny in ways our grandmothers never thought possible.” (Read more from “New Scientific Breakthroughs Are Having a Huge Impact on the Abortion Debate” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former Military Lawyers Just Dropped a Bombshell on ‘Chelsea Manning’s’ Senate Run

Chelsea Manning has filed to run for Senate as a Democratic candidate in Maryland, but such a run subjects Manning to prosecution for violating Pentagon regulations on political activities, according to former military lawyers.

Manning, the transgender soldier who spent seven years in prison for leaking more than 700,000 sensitive documents to WikiLeaks, recently filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission and is seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination for the Senate seat in Maryland currently occupied by Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin, a two-term senator.

In a Thursday tweet, Manning posted a certificate of candidacy obtained from the Maryland State Board of Elections, an important and required step in the process of running for Senate.

One of the lines of the certificate states: “I am a registered voter and a citizen of Maryland and meet all other requirements for the above listed office.”

The website of the state board shows that Manning filed in Annapolis on Thursday, which is far in advance of the late February deadline and raises the stakes for the Democratic primary in Maryland set to begin at the end of June.

As part of the coverage of Manning’s filing with the FEC and state board, virtually every media organization has declared that Manning is a former Army private. In fact, as the Army confirmed to The Daily Caller News Foundation in September 2017, Manning remains an active-duty soldier, albeit on excess leave and in a non-pay status while his appeal of a general court-martial for violating the Espionage Act and other orders is still underway.

Manning was originally sentenced to 35 years in prison, but then-President Barack Obama stepped in and commuted the sentence as one of his last acts in office, freeing Manning from a military prison in Kansas.

The Army further stated that Manning holds an active-duty identification card and acknowledged his status and access to government health care prior to being released.

While Manning’s felony conviction does not appear to automatically disqualify a run for office, his active-duty status presents a much more troubling issue. Such a status, in other words, has enormous implications for engaging in any kind of political activity, especially a Senate run.

Dru Brenner-Beck, retired Army judge advocate general and president of the National Institute of Military Justice, told The Daily Caller News Foundation that on the face of it, Manning is prohibited by Department of Defense regulations from running for office while serving in an active-duty capacity.

The only exception is if Secretary of Defense Gen. James Mattis grants explicit permission, a power that cannot be delegated by a secretary to anyone else.

According to Brenner-Beck, the regulation in question is Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 Directive 1344.10, Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces, dated Feb. 9, 2008, para. 4.2.2.

“That paragraph is punitive and violation of it subjects her to courts-martial for violation of a lawful order or regulation under Article 92,” Brenner-Beck told TheDCNF. “Her activities campaigning for herself and fundraising for herself may also violate other provisions of the DoD Directive, themselves separately punishable under the UCMJ, art. 92.”

Brenner-Beck added that prosecution, in this case, is a “discretionary decision by her chain of command.”

Victor M. Hansen, a law professor at New England Law and former military lawyer, also agreed that Manning’s run for office is legally prohibited and could result in prosecution.

“It’s prohibited for the obvious reason that you don’t want someone serving two masters on active-duty,” Hansen stated.

He added: “But in Manning’s case, it’s less of a concern, because she’s on excess leave — she has less connection with the military than GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham did when he was an Air Force reserve judge advocate general and certainly less than Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster does while serving as national security adviser to Donald Trump.”

If the Pentagon declines to prosecute, it’s possible that other active-duty members of the military will assume that running for office or engaging in political campaigns or advocacy in ways that overstep the bounds of regulations won’t be met with much resistance.

But Hansen doesn’t think someone as outlandish as Manning would inspire other active-duty service members to violate DOD regulations and run for political office, in addition to other prohibited forms of political involvement. For Hansen, Manning is a bit of an exceptional case.

Brenner-Beck, however, believes that prosecution under the Trump administration is not out of the question because of Trump’s active involvement in disparaging Bowe Bergdahl, who was on trial for desertion and misbehavior before the enemy in Afghanistan. Brenner-Beck believes Bergdahl represents a blatant example of disregarding the principle of avoiding unlawful command influence.

Trump blasted Manning in January 2017, after Obama commuted his prison sentence, calling him an “ungrateful traitor” who never should have been released.

Hansen also warned of the possibility of outside pressure on Manning’s chain of command.

“There’s always the risk that somebody could put pressure on that commander or take it to a higher level and prosecute at that level, so there is a risk of unlawful command influence,” Hansen said. “If someone were to decide that we want to bring charges for Manning on this, that would be the very thing I would look into — who made the decision, why, and was there any outside pressures from above.”

According to Hansen, the Army likely wants the issue of Manning to fade away from the public spotlight rather than having a commander take the time to open an investigation.

In his first interview since filing paperwork with the FEC, Manning denied that the run was merely a PR stunt and insisted that despite Cardin’s popularity and strong base of support, he is dead-set on both running and winning.

“We know it’s a real fight ahead of us,” Manning told The Guardian. “We do want to win, but if we lose our principles then winning wouldn’t matter.”

Manning’s main political positions include closing down all prisons, providing free health care and opening U.S. borders to all immigrants.

“We shouldn’t be denying the absolute right to come into the United States,” he added. “You have a right, everybody does.”

It remains to be seen how other political entities will handle a prohibited run for office. So far, Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin, the incumbent Manning is attempting to challenge, has only stated: “Senator Cardin is looking forward to a vigorous debate of the issues and a robust conversation with Maryland voters.”

Cardin’s office did not respond to a request for comment on Manning’s eligibility to run, neither did the Democratic Party of Maryland.

The Army refused to comment to TheDCNF.

Chelsea Manning did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment.

A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Someone Just Found a Video of Obama Talking About the 2013 Government Shutdown

Former President Barack Obama had stern words after the Republican minority in the Senate shut down the government for 16 days in 2013 over funding for Obamacare.

“You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don’t break it,” Obama said in remarks on Oct. 17, 2013, after Congress reached a deal to reopen the government.

“Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building,” he added. “That’s not being faithful to what this country’s about.”

“Now, there’s been a lot of discussion lately of the politics of this shutdown,” Obama said. “But let’s be clear. There are no winners here. These last few weeks have inflicted completely unnecessary damage on our economy.”

The government shutdown began early Saturday after the Senate failed to pass a temporary funding bill.

Democrats voted against the measure and demanded a deal to address illegal immigrants who have protection under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Both parties have spent the past week fighting over who is more responsible for the shutdown.

Republicans blame Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for fighting for illegal immigrants more than the military service members and government employees who would be affected by the shutdown.

“Senate Democrats own the Schumer Shutdown. Tonight, they put politics above our national security, military families, vulnerable children, and our country’s ability to serve all Americans,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement Saturday.

“We will not negotiate the status of unlawful immigrants while Democrats hold our lawful citizens hostage over their reckless demands,” she continued. “This is the behavior of obstructionist losers, not legislators.”

Democrats, meanwhile, have placed the blame on Republicans who control the House, and the Senate by a narrow majority, and President Donald Trump for failing to negotiate, but neither side appears to be making specific policy demands.

Schumer himself decried the politics of brinksmanship that led to the 2013 shutdown. “No matter how strongly one feels about an issue, you shouldn’t hold millions of people hostage,” Schumer said on ABC’s “This Week” in 2013. “That’s what the other side is doing. That’s wrong, and we can’t give in to that.”

Obama’s 2013 charge that the GOP should “go out there and win an election” if they didn’t like his policies proved prophetic.

Republicans gained nine Senate seats a year later in the 2014 midterm elections, ending nearly eight years of a Democratic majority in that chamber.

A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Twist: Christians Use Same-Sex Ruling to Protect Their Rights

In an unexpected twist, a federal civil-rights lawsuit alleges a Michigan school district’s imposition of a transgender-rights agenda on students and parents violates the very rights created by the Supreme Court decision that established “same-sex marriage.”

It is the first lawsuit in the nation claiming a person’s religious identity is protected by the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges marriage case, according to the legal team that filed suit against the Williamston Community Schools public district and its board.

The claim, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, outlines “numerous civil rights and constitutional violations rising from policies recently passed by the school board,” the lawyers at the Great Lakes Justice Center explain.

“Common sense and common decency demand that biologically intact boys should not be showering with girls, should not be allowed to use girls’ bathroom and locker room facilities, or take a girl’s spot on an athletic team,” said David Kallman, senior counsel with the center . . .

Added William Wagner, president of the center: “The Supreme Court in Obergefell recognized that all citizens have a right to privacy, dignity, and personal identity. These rights must be protected by the school district for all students.” (Read more from “Twist: Christians Use Same-Sex Ruling to Protect Their Rights” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

More Texts Turned over from FBI Agent Taken off Mueller Team

The Justice Department has turned over to Congress additional text messages involving an FBI agent who was removed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team following the discovery of derogatory comments about President Donald Trump.

But the department also said in a letter to lawmakers that its record of messages sent to and from the agent, Peter Strzok, was incomplete because the FBI, for technical reasons, had been unable to preserve and retrieve about five months’ worth of communications.

New text messages highlighted in a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray by Sen. Ron Johnson, the Republican chairman of the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, are from the spring and summer of 2016 and involve discussion of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. They reference Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s decision to accept the FBI’s conclusion in that case and a draft statement that former FBI Director James Comey had prepared in anticipation of closing out the Clinton investigation without criminal charges. (Read more from “More Texts Turned over from FBI Agent Taken off Mueller Team” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke Faces Civil Trial

By AP. Former Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke’s run-in with a 25-year-old man who shook his head at him while boarding a flight last year is headed to trial.

Daniel Black sued the sheriff for having deputies detain him and question him at Milwaukee’s airport, but Clarke’s taunting social media posts remain the focus of the case. Here’s a look at history of the case and the legal issues that will play out in federal court. The trial starts Monday.

Clarke and Black were boarding a flight from Dallas to Milwaukee on Jan. 15, 2017 — the day Clarke’s beloved Dallas Cowboys were facing the Green Bay Packers in the playoffs. The sheriff was clad in Dallas gear without his trademark cowboy hat and Black said he didn’t immediately recognize him because of that. He asked Clarke if he was Milwaukee’s sheriff, according to his lawsuit, and when Clarke said yes, Black shook his head disapprovingly. (Read more from “Former Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke Faces Civil Trial” HERE)

__________________________________________

Ex-Sheriff David Clarke Faces Trial over Facebook Taunts Against Plane Passenger

By Huffington Post. Staunch President Donald Trump ally and former Milwaukee County sheriff David Clarke faces trial this month for Facebook taunts against a plane passenger who Clarke thought disrespected him.

Passenger Dan Black filed a civil rights lawsuit against Clarke arguing he violated Black’s First Amendment rights with retaliatory Facebook posts on the sheriff’s page. Wisconsin U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller ruled Friday that Clarke’s posts could “reasonably be understood as a threat, coercion, or intimidation that punishment … will immediately follow.” A jury is now set to hear the case Jan. 22.

Threatening posts appeared on the sheriff’s Facebook page after Black, a Milwaukee resident, filed a complaint about his treatment by Clarke when the two men encountered each other on a plane heading from Dallas to Milwaukee early last year. Black shook his head when he recognized Clarke, and Clarke directed deputies to detain Black after landing. Black was met by six deputies and two police dogs, questioned and escorted from the airport, according to an FBI account of the events.

Black filed a civil rights suit against the deputies and Clarke — who was once considered for a post as Trump’s deputy secretary of Homeland Security — accusing them of violating his constitutional rights of free speech and due process, and his right against unreasonable seizure. (Read more from “Ex-Sheriff David Clarke Faces Trial over Facebook Taunts Against Plane Passenger” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Study Reveals How Migrants Really Feel About Non-Muslims

Muslim migrants in Austria tend to express “Medieval” attitudes toward Jews, homosexuals, women and non-Muslims, according to an academic survey.

The study by Ednan Aslan, professor of Islamic Religious Education at the University of Vienna, interviewed a sample of 288 of the approximately 4,000 predominantly Afghan asylum seekers in state care in the southeastern Austrian city of Graz, according to the Austrian daily Kurier, Breitbart reported.

The survey found that some 54.5 percent believe Jewish people don’t care about anyone but themselves, and 44.2 percent think Judaism is actively harmful to the world.

Aslan observed: “For certain refugees anti-Semitism is a matter of course, which has given the refugee movement a new dimension.”

Strikingly, nearly 50 percent said Islam played a bigger role in their lives in Austria than it did in their native countries. (Read more from “Study Reveals How Migrants Really Feel About Non-Muslims” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here Comes a ‘Super Blue Blood Moon Eclipse’

Blood moons and eclipses have come and gone. But the signs of the times are getting more ominous than ever.

As if the total solar eclipse last August and the “blood moons” of 2014 and 2015 weren’t enough, there will be a “super blue blood moon eclipse” on Jan. 31 – something that hasn’t happened for 150 years.

And this rare event could herald war and turbulence on earth, according to a leading researcher of astronomical signs and how they interact with Scripture.

Rather than just looking skyward, Pastor Mark Biltz of El Shaddai Ministries, the man who discovered the “Blood Moons” phenomenon, says people need to be looking to their Bibles.

“Many people seem to be overlooking the real importance of this event,” Biltz told WND. “The ‘super moon’ which takes place on January 31 is what is termed a ‘blue moon,’ because it is the second full moon in one month. It’s also going to be a total lunar eclipse, making it a ‘blood moon’ as well. This is the first time there’s been a total eclipse for a blue moon in 150 years, which makes it remarkable enough. (Read more from “Here Comes a ‘Super Blue Blood Moon Eclipse'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Look Who’s Suing to Quash U.S. Terror Screening

A group established as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. is suing the federal government’s Terrorist Screening Database, contending it stigmatizes its targets without due process.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Associated Press reported, filed the lawsuit Wednesday in federal court in Dallas on behalf of five Muslim American citizens.

CAIR said the Muslims face consequences for being on the watch list, “including the inability to fly on airplanes, intrusive screenings at airports, and the denial of applications for credit cards and bank loans.”

The database, charged CAIR’s senior litigation attorney, Gadeir Abbas, is “nothing more than a list of innocent Muslim citizens who have not been arrested, charged or convicted of a crime.”

Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer – noting CAIR was named by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case – asks, with a large dose of irony: “What could its purpose possibly be in wanting to end the Terrorist Screening Database?” (Read more from “Look Who’s Suing to Quash U.S. Terror Screening” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.