At CPAC, Panelists Discuss Role Vetting, Assimilation Play in National Security

/0 Comments/in , /by

Extreme vetting and a border wall are the key issues facing the country under President Donald Trump’s administration—but aren’t the silver bullet solution to immigration, experts and members of Congress said Saturday.

“Extreme vetting is something that applies to the refugee side of this debate,” said Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., during a panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC.

The forum was titled “If Heaven Has a Gate, a Wall, and Extreme Vetting, Why Can’t America?” and covered a number of illegal immigration issues, from the national security impact to the economy.

On Jan. 27, Trump signed an executive order for a 120-day pause to temporarily block immigration from seven Middle Eastern terrorism hot spots—Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen.

Buck said the United States either shouldn’t take refugees from those countries, or take them only after doing adequate background checks.

“Really, what the president was talking about, what Congress was talking about, is when we’re dealing with countries that are hot spots of terrorism that are destabilized as a result of civil war, we don’t have the ability to go into those countries and find records to determine if someone has health issues, or criminal background, or is radicalized in some ways,” Buck said.

The Trump administration calls this approach “extreme vetting,” but critics charge it is a “Muslim ban.”

After judicial setbacks, the Trump administration will take a dual track of defending the current order, while also drafting a new order, White House press secretary Sean Spicer has said.

Washington state and Minnesota sued to stop the president’s executive orders. A federal judge in Seattle suspended enforcement of the order. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld that temporary restraining order.

Multiculturalism prevents a common national identity and language, said Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“This issue of multiculturalism has to be solved no matter what we do with immigration,” Gonzalez said. “We can do all the vetting we want, but if people come in and they are assimilated into groups, we are going to have a problem unless we take care of that.”

This extends into national security, he said, because often the younger generations are taught multiculturalism in schools.

“This is true for radicalization,” Gonzalez said. “It’s not really the immigrant, the guy who comes in. It’s his child or the second generation that becomes radicalized.”

This largely has been a government construct, he said.

“We have always been multiethnic. We have never been multicultural,” Gonzalez said of America. “Immigrants are pressed into ethnic groups that form the building blocks of multiculturalism.”

On Jan. 25, Trump signed other executive orders regarding immigration. 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 said 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, Trump said, he will seek reimbursement from the Mexican government.

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.

Immigration can’t be addressed without reintroducing the idea of a guest worker program, said Helen Krieble of the Vernon K. Krieble Foundation, who was the biggest advocate of the gate referred to in the title of the forum.

“You will never deport 11 or 12 or 15 million illegal immigrants,” she said.

An audience member shouted, “Why not?”

“Because you can’t. It’s logistically impossible,” Krieble responded. “If that person has got a self-supporting job, has never committed a crime in the United States, they have no path to citizenship, no path to a green card, and no use of our social services, to allow him to apply for a simple work permit so that they are here legally is a good idea.”

However, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., insisted: “You build the wall and plan for the gate. We have to secure the border. That has to be job one.”

He added:

That takes a wall, that takes technology, that takes boots on the ground. That takes all this administration says they are committed to doing. Similarly, they are talking about, I think President Trump calls it, a beautiful gate. He wants a gate. He wants people to have access. But, if folks are here, and they are then applying for these jobs that Helen is talking about, that has the potential to be very problematic.

If you are going to move in that direction, that’s why I say you have to do three things first—border control, internal enforcement, and you have to take away their inducements. But if you have inducements to come to America and apply for this card, then you have an inducement to be here, perhaps even illegally. If you’re going to allow this kind of program, you would want them in your home country to obtain that card and then work it out that way.

CPAC, the largest annual national gathering of conservative activists, runs from Wednesday to Saturday at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington. (For more from the author of “At CPAC, Panelists Discuss Role Vetting, Assimilation Play in National Security” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New EPA Administrator Emphasizes Federalism, Rule of Law

/1 Comment/in , /by

“The future ain’t what it used to be at the EPA.”

That was the message of Scott Pruitt, the newly confirmed administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to conservatives gathered Saturday at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC.

“Process, rule of law, and cooperative federalism, that is going to be the heart of how we do business at the EPA,” Pruitt said.

In his role as EPA administrator, Pruitt said that he would work to restore the role of the states.

“What really matters a lot is federalism,” the former Oklahoma attorney general said.

“We are going to once again pay attention to states across this country. I believe the people in Oklahoma, in Texas, Indiana, Ohio, New York, and California and all the states across the country … care about the air they breathe and they care about the water they drink and we are going to be partners with those individuals, not adversaries.”

Pruitt said the EPA will also “pay attention to process.”

“We are not going to bypass rule-making,” he said. “We are going to do the work that Congress has said we must do.”

The new administrator also said he will make sure the EPA pays “keen attention to [the] rule of law.”

“As we engage in real rule-making, as we make sure that we don’t use the courts to regulate, we are going to do so with a keen attention to rule of law,” Pruitt said. “Rule of law matters.”

Pruitt said executive agencies must operate under the authority Congress has given them, and not go beyond it.

“Executive agencies only have the power that Congress has given them, they can’t make it up as they go,” Pruitt said. “They can’t fill in the blank. They can’t say, ‘We’re just simply going to go forward without Congress speaking.’”

CPAC, the largest annual national gathering of conservative activists, runs from Wednesday to Saturday at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington. (For more from the author of “New EPA Administrator Emphasizes Federalism, Rule of Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Where Conservatives Are in the Trump Era: 15 Takeaways From Their Biggest Conference

/0 Comments/in , /by

Five weeks into President Donald Trump’s presidency, the first time in eight years a Republican has been in the White House, where do conservatives see the country going?

Here are highlights from The Daily Signal’s coverage of the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, the largest annual gathering of conservatives:

1. Trump talks policy objectives.

In his speech, Trump emphasized a variety of issues that conservatives care about, saying, “We will build the wall and we are going to start soon,” as well as promising “a substantial upgrade for the military.” He also took aim at regulations:

We are going to put the regulation industry out of work. By the way, I want regulations. I want to protect our environment. I want regulations for safety. I want all the regulations we need, and I want them to be so strong and so tough. But we don’t need 75 percent of the repetitive, horrible regulations that hurt companies, hurt jobs, make us noncompetitive overseas with companies from other countries.

2. The filmmakers behind the “Gosnell” movie discuss the real story.

Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, whose clinic was dubbed a “house of horrors,” hasn’t received the attention his case deserves. Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney talk about this “serial killer.”

3. Gov. Scott Walker urges GOP lawmakers to keep their promises.

“It’s not only conservatives and Republicans who like that, but what we found in Wisconsin is that independents and, yes, even some discerning Democrats, like it when you do the things you say you were going to do,” said the Republican governor, no stranger to Democrat protests. “Commonsense conservative reforms work, they actually work, and people respond to them.”

4. British politician Nigel Farage calls 2016 “the beginning of a global political revolution.”

Farage, who campaigned with Trump during the election, said the message of sovereignty and nationalism that drove United Kingdom voters to choose Brexit last June mirrors the populist vision that has taken power in Washington,” wrote Josh Siegel in his report.

“When in years to come, the generations that follow us study the history of this period, there is one year that will stand out,” Farage said. “That year is the year of 2016. Because in 2016 we witnessed the beginning of a global political revolution, and it’s one that is not going to stop.”

5. Gov. Sam Brownback talks about refugees.

The Kansas Republican made the case that it isn’t about the number of refugees, but whether they are vetted sufficiently before coming to America. “You can’t bring people in the United States who want to kill us,” he told The Daily Signal.

6. Kellyanne Conway predicts the conference could become “TPAC.”

Trump’s winning campaign manager and adviser suggested Trump was having an impact on the conservative movement. “This will be TPAC,” Conway said. “He has brought this infusion of energy. He made people feel from the beginning they are part of a movement. People felt so energized as they had a seat at the table. … He replaced this fiction of electability with this revelation of electricity.”

7. Katie Pavlich highlights the myths about gun suppressors.

The author and Fox News contributor talked to The Daily Signal’s Kelsey Harkness about guns—and puppies.

8. Carly Fiorina says conservatives should work on “growing support.”

“Substantial change inspires substantial resistance, and boy, is there substantial resistance out there,” Fiorina said. “If change is not accompanied by growing support, the substantial change is never sustained.”

“We have to bring people along now, so that the changes we all believe in will be sustained,” the former Republican presidential candidate added.

9. Jim DeMint says conservatives must achieve the “impossible.”

“Our job as conservatives, and as the national conservative movement, is to make possible what the establishment says is impossible,” the former South Carolina Republican senator who is president of The Heritage Foundation said. He warned:

They’re saying you can’t build a wall and control our borders. You have to give amnesty and citizenship to the people who are here illegally. They’re saying you can’t repeal Obamacare. Tax reform is just too controversial. You can’t ever balance the budget. And of course, you must reopen the big, crony, corrupt Export-Import Bank. That’s what [Republicans] are hearing behind closed doors right now.

10. John Bolton thinks it’s time to end the Iran nuclear deal.

“With respect to Iran, and its support for international terrorism and its nuclear weapons program, candidate Trump described everything that was wrong with Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran,” the former United Nations ambassador said.

“He should abrogate that deal, end that deal as soon as possible,” Bolton added. “We need a clear statement of leadership by the United States that this was a strategic debacle for our country and we don’t intend to let it persist.”

11. Police chief Stephen Mills makes the case for civil asset forfeiture reform.

“President Trump, I want to thank your administration for your support of law enforcement,” Mills, whose story was told last year by The Daily Signal, said in his remarks. “I know you’re being told by other members of law enforcement and associated groups that asset forfeiture reform is a bad idea, that it’ll help the cartels and terrorists. I want you to know there are many of us out in the field who don’t agree with that sentiment.”

12. Conservatives call for Obamacare repeal.

“It’s going to happen,” said Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, referring to repeal of the health care law.

“What [the 2015 repeal bill] demonstrated to me was that if you got the right president in the White House, you could send that bill back down to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and you could repeal large pieces of the Affordable Care Act.”

13. Rep. Andy Biggs talks about illegal immigration.

Is this the year the wall on the border is actually going to happen? The Daily Signal’s Rob Bluey talked to the Arizona Republican about that and more.

14. Mike Pence discusses Obamacare replacement.

In his speech, the vice president talked about Obamacare repeal and replacement, saying he and Trump want all Americans to have “access to quality and affordable health care insurance, which is why we’re designing a better law that lowers the cost of health insurance without growing the size of government.”

Pence added:

We’re going to let Americans purchase health insurance across state lines, the way you buy your life insurance, the way you buy your car insurance.

We’re going to make sure that Americans with pre-existing conditions have access to health insurance and the security they need, and we’re going to give states the freedom and flexibility to take care of the least fortunate in the best way that will work in their state and in their community.

15. Ted Cruz pushes term limits.

From the report by The Daily Signal’s Rachel del Guidice:

“This election was the American people saying, ‘Enough already with the corruption in both parties, Democrats and Republicans who have been here too long,’” Cruz [R-Texas] said.

Cruz told attendees of CPAC that one significant way politicians could deliver on “draining the swamp” is by paving the way for term limits for Congress.

“President [Donald] Trump campaigned on draining the swamp,” Cruz said. “We have majorities in both houses. I think we ought to demonstrate that we have heard the voters; we bring up term limits, pass it, send it to the states for ratification.”

CPAC, the largest annual national gathering of conservative activists, ran from Wednesday to Saturday at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington. (For more from the author of “Where Conservatives Are in the Trump Era: 15 Takeaways From Their Biggest Conference” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hollywood Liberal Groupthink on Display at Oscars

/0 Comments/in , /by

Once again, Hollywood showcased its complete lack of diversity in thought at the Oscars.

Of course, it’s a free country, and Hollywood is fine to keep its liberal streak going … just as conservatives can continue to decide whether they want to support new movies.

But it does suggest that there might be a lot of fine stories left untold and moral dilemmas left unexplored, because Hollywood limits itself to such a narrow mindset.

Here are three “highlights” from Sunday night’s 89th Academy Awards ceremony:

1. Actresses Emma Stone and Dakota Johnson wear their support for Planned Parenthood.

What’s lovelier than plugging the nation’s largest abortion provider?

2. Host Jimmy Kimmel takes aim at President Donald Trump.

If you are among the half of all voters who supported Trump for president, Kimmel wasn’t interested in winning your support. The late-night host made several cracks about Trump, including: “This broadcast is being watched live by millions of Americans and around the world in more than 225 countries that now hate us.”

“I want to say thank you to President Trump. Remember last year when it seemed like the Oscars were racist? That’s gone, thanks to him,” Kimmel also said.

3. Iranian filmmaker attacks the travel ban.

“My absence is out of respect for the people of my country and those of the other six nations who have been disrespected by the inhumane law that bans entry of immigrants to the U.S.,” Asghar Farhadi, who didn’t attend the Oscars, said in a statement read out loud when his movie, “The Salesman,” won for best foreign language film.

“Dividing the world into the ‘us’ and ‘our enemies’ categories creates fears. A deceitful justification for aggression and war. These wars prevent democracy and human rights in countries which have themselves been victims of aggression,” Farhadi added in his statement, which got a warm reception from the audience.

Right—because of course, it’s crazy to hit pause on people from seven countries considered terrorism hot spots entering the United States. The only possible reason could be inhumanity, not a desire to protect the security of American citizens. (For more from the author of “Hollywood Liberal Groupthink on Display at Oscars” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Islamists Just Sawed off a Jew’s Finger. That’s Not Enough Bloodshed for the ‘Tolerant’ Left.

/0 Comments/in , , /by

All these churches working their hearts out for “the religious liberty right” to import Shariah immigration — instead of fighting for religious conscience rights at home for Christians — ought to pay attention to what’s going on in Europe.

The issue of mass Islamic immigration to western countries has become the Waterloo of political correctness that has plagued western democracies in recent decades. That is because under the guise of “tolerance,” they have tolerated the intolerant, importing large numbers of individuals whose value system is irreconcilably against western enlightened values.

When liberals lecture us on the need to bring in record numbers of migrants from the Middle East under the guise of tolerance and compassion, they never discuss the results of such policies that are so vividly on display across the pond in Europe.

It is well known that Jews cannot live safely in many parts of Europe thanks to the suicidal immigration policies they have pursued over the past 50 years; policies, by the way, we have mimicked in recent years, placing us just one generation behind the tipping point they are experiencing today. Just to get a flavor of what has become so commonplace in Europe (that it is no longer newsworthy), here is a story of the most recent attack on Jews in France:

The kippah-wearing brothers, whose father is a Jewish leader in Bondy, were forced off the main road by another vehicle on to a side street, according to the BNVCA report. While the vehicle was in motion, the driver and a passenger shouted anti-Semitic slogans at the brothers that included “Dirty Jews, You’re going to die!” the father told BNVCA based on the complaint filed by his sons.

The vehicle forced the brothers to stop their car, and they were surrounded by several men whom they described as having a Middle Eastern appearance. The men came out of a hookah café on to the side street, according to the case report published by the news website JSSNews.

The alleged attackers surrounded the brothers, then kicked and punched them repeatedly while threatening that they would be murdered if they moved. One of the alleged attackers then sawed off the finger of one of the brothers.

This particularly gruesome incident is not an aberration. Jews need armed guards at all their major institutions, reminiscent of what Israel had to do for years during the intifada. The chief rabbi of Belgium said last year there is no future for Jews in Europe. It is actually safer for Jews living in Judea and Samaria near Middle Eastern Arabs than those living in parts of Europe because European countries don’t have a security apparatus to deal with suicidal immigration policies into western countries.

Anti-Semitism is on the rise everywhere in the world commensurate with the rise of Islam in western countries and the prominence of Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups operating on campus and in other areas of society. Liberals, including Hillary Clinton, are suddenly discovering the growing anti-Semitism, but they are obfuscating the root cause of it and trying to pin it somehow on the few weeks since Trump assumed office.

Liberals refuse to recognize the common sense that our founders understood when they were so careful to bring in only individuals who championed our “republican values,” as Jefferson wrote in his essay on immigration in the “Notes on the State of Virginia.” Yet liberals are now importing the values of the Middle East.

According to Pew, most individuals in predominantly Muslim countries harbor virulent hatred for Jews. Obviously, if we bring in small numbers from these countries, it’s possible to assimilate some of them, but when admitted in such large quantities, we are invariably importing the values of the Middle East.

It’s amazing watching both liberals and pseudo-conservatives espouse a view on immigration completely divorced from our history and founding. It’s as if there is a default right for anyone to come here unless we can demonstrate up front that the individual is a known terrorist. The reality is that most of these attacks in Europe come from radicalized Shariah Muslims that either immigrated from North Africa or are children of immigrants that, at the time they came in, there was no way to “vet” their behavior aside from looking at their values system.

Why should we let in anyone with values antithetical to our universal values of enlightenment and true tolerance? While many of them won’t necessarily commit terror attacks, their cumulative growth in numbers cultivates the climate for those who do. Moreover, many of them grow up hating Americans and hating our values. Leo Hohman did a terrific job chronicling the cultural problems and the sexual harassment emanating from members of the Minneapolis Somali community in his new book, “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and the Resettlement Jihad” (Listen to my podcast interview with him here.)

To be clear, everyone who is in America has a right to be hateful and harbor a supremacist mindset as long as they don’t break the law. But there is no right to immigrate. The same way we should be careful about bringing in large numbers of immigrants from hypothetical parts of the world that are saturated — albeit not exclusively populated — with white supremacists. Shouldn’t the same apply for Islamic supremacists who are at war with our entire culture and pose a greater security threat than any other hateful ideology?

Amazingly, liberals have the nerve to compare not importing Shariah values to countries that refused to admit Jews in before the Holocaust. Well, maybe they should look at what’s going on in Europe, and they will understand that it is more analogous to not letting in the Nazis. Scandalously, these same liberals are the ones who want Israel to commit suicide, thereby eliminating the one safe harbor for European Jews fleeing anti-Semitism … thanks to their suicidal immigration policies in the West!

During the debate in the House of Representatives over the Naturalization Act of 1790, Theodore Sedgwick explained that Congress was handed the keys to immigration so that it would use discretion to “admit none but reputable citizens, such only were fit for the society into which they were blended.”

Madison expressed his desire to bring in only those who would be “a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.” This was a point he made 26 years earlier at the Constitutional Convention when he declared we should only admit “foreigners of merit & republican principles among us” in order “to maintain the character of liberality which had been professed in all the Constitutions & publications of America.”

And remember, their concerns about undesirable immigration was about Europe, not the Islamic world. They could never have envisioned the self-immolation of today’s “leaders.” They are rolling over in their graves. (For more from the author of “Islamists Just Sawed off a Jew’s Finger. That’s Not Enough Bloodshed for the ‘Tolerant’ Left.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

DNC Transgender Spox Turns Into Stuttering Mess When Tucker Asks About Science

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

A transgender advocate struggled to answer simple questions about the science of gender identity in a discussion about former President Obama’s transgender bathroom decree Thursday on Tucker Carlson Tonight.

“Let’s move from the politics to the science,” Carlson said to Zac Petkanas, Democratic National Committee senior advisor, launching into a series of questions about the implications of allowing people to determine their sex.

“There’s no biological anchor to sex anymore. It’s all determined by the individual,” he said. “So my obvious question for you is, how do I know if a person’s male or female? Is there some absolute standard people have to meet to be male or female, other than what they say?”

“One’s gender identity is enough to show what gender they are,” Petkanas replied.

“There are massive implications of this that everyone is either too dumb or too embarrassed to explore, but let’s do so now,” Carlson added. “If your sex is what you say it is, then what prevents me from playing on a women’s field hockey team? What prevents me from getting convicted of a felony and demanding to go to a women’s prison? It’s a real question.” (Read more from “DNC Transgender Spox Turns Into Stuttering Mess When Tucker Asks About Science” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lethal Judiciary: California Cop Killed by Known Criminal Released by Activist Supreme Court

/0 Comments/in , /by

Over the past few weeks, we have chronicled how the courts have bastardized fundamental rights, inverted state and federal powers, redefined marriage and sexuality, and erased our national sovereignty.

One of the old pastimes of the courts has been to interfere with state or federal criminal justice procedures that have been in place for years, resulting in colossal public safety concerns. Sadly, one of those chickens came home to roost this week in Los Angeles where a cop was killed by a known, violent criminal set free thanks to court-mandated legislation.

Michael Christopher Mejia is suspected of killing Whittier, California policeman Keith Boyer during a shootout in east Los Angeles on Monday. What is so tragic about this case is that Mejia was arrested five times over the past seven months during a probation program that was borne out of a 2011 court decision. He served only two years for a robbery conviction in 2014 and has been allowed to roam free despite five parole violations since 2016 because he had been deemed a “non-violent” offender. And who would want to fill up prisons with such peaceful denizens?

In Brown v. Plata (2011), Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a 5-4 decision asserting that his subjective view of overcrowding in California’s prison system (exacerbated by illegal aliens, by the way) violates the Eight Amendment. The court, therefore, required the state to engage in a massive jailbreak.

Needless to say, the liberal politicians in the state were eager to capitalize on this ruling. Much like Anthony Kennedy redefined marriage to comport with his personal views, he redefined the Eighth Amendment — as a living and breathing amendment — resulting in the release of at least 46,000 prisoners.

This is part of a growing trend whereby judges codify their political agenda for loosening crime statutes into the Constitution. Judges have already invalidated life in prison without parole for juvenile murderers, have invalidated a number of criminal statutes both at the state and federal level, and are now creating an arbitrary constitutional class of non-violent offenders, just like Mejia!

At the time, Justice Samuel Alito dissented due in part to public safety concerns, citing a prisoner release program carried out in Philadelphia in the 1990s:

Although efforts were made to release only those prisoners who were least likely to commit violent crimes, that attempt was spectacularly unsuccessful. During an 18-month period, the Philadelphia police rearrested thousands of these prisoners for committing 9,732 new crimes. Those defendants were charged with 79 murders, 90 rapes, 1,113 assaults, 959 robberies, 701 burglaries, and 2,748 thefts, not to mention thousands of drug offenses.

— Alito, J., dissenting, slip op. at 14

Justice Scalia lampooned Kennedy in a scathing dissent (joined by Justice Thomas), in which he spent nine minutes reading it from the bench and called Plata, “perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation’s history.” (Although, that was before the injunction on marriage and national sovereignty that took place recently!)

Today the Court affirms what is perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our Nation’s history: an order requiring California to release the staggering number of 46,000 convicted criminals.

There comes before us, now and then, a case whose proper outcome is so clearly indicated by tradition and common sense, that its decision ought to shape the law, rather than vice versa. One would think that, before allowing the decree of a federal district court to release 46,000 convicted felons, this Court would bend every effort to read the law in such a way as to avoid that outrageous result. Today, quite to the contrary, the Court disregards stringently drawn provisions of the governing statute, and traditional constitutional limitations upon the power of a federal judge, in order to uphold the absurd.

The proceedings that led to this result were a judicial travesty. I dissent because the institutional reform the District Court has undertaken violates the terms of the governing statute, ignores bedrock limitations on the power of Article III judges, and takes federal courts wildly beyond their institutional capacity.

Sadly, most legal eagles on the Right have been overcome by a strain of libertarianism that actually champions this sort of social transformation from the bench. Federal or state sovereignty, and national security be damned. Amazingly, they want to pass “criminal justice reform” to give the courts even more — not less— power over criminal law.

When reading Scalia’s writings, one is jolted by the degree of common sense, history, and tradition that he used to complement the original meaning of the Constitution and the role of the courts. All of that is lost in today’s judiciary, including much of the right-leaning legal profession. It would be nice to see if Neil Gorsuch shares this same character trait of Scalia, given the wide support for him among legal libertarians. We could add it to our long list of unanswered questions and unknowns about the next Supreme Court pick.

The growing trend of court involvement in criminal justice policy is one of the worst manifestations of social transformation without representation whereby they are violating state sovereignty, congressional statutes, and the underpinnings of the social compact. Even if Gorsuch turns out to be good on these issues, the Left already has an impervious five-seat firewall. And Roberts is also unreliable. Yesterday, the Supreme Court stayed an execution on ridiculous grounds and only Thomas and Alito dissented. They bulldozed settled law, criminal statutes, and state plenary procedures, as they did last year when staying executions in Georgia and Pennsylvania.

Sadly, there will probably be a lot more murders of cops and civilians at the hands of judicially mandated jailbreak before Congress protects state legislatures from the federal courts. (For more from the author of “Lethal Judiciary: California Cop Killed by Known Criminal Released by Activist Supreme Court” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

President Trump’s CPAC Speech Sounded Great … But Was a Total Disappointment. Sad!

/0 Comments/in , /by

Friday morning, President Donald Trump addressed CPAC for the first time since becoming president of the United States. At a time when conservatives need leadership from the president, his speech was a disappointment.

“It’s great to be back at CPAC,” the president said to an adoring crowd. “I wouldn’t miss a chance to talk to my friends … and we’ll be doing this next year. And the year after that.”

The stakes were high for this address. Weeks of controversy have plagued the new administration and have given the appearance of a failure to launch.

How so? The president’s first major action, an executive order on immigration, was poorly executed. Despite the president’s clear statutory authority to issue the order, the administration was unable to defend its action in court. The president’s first choice for national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, was forced to resign amid controversy over his communications with the Russians.

Campaign promises also remain unfulfilled. The president abandoned social conservatives by giving up on an executive order meant to undo an Obama-era directive that harms religious liberty. The president’s repeated pledge to undo President Obama’s illegal amnesty executive order seems dead now. Obamacare is still in place. Tax reform is delayed.

On top of all that several members of the president’s Cabinet are still yet to be confirmed amid Democratic obstruction in the Senate.

Perception is everything in politics, and the missteps from these first few weeks have overshadowed the administration’s successes. For the first time most Americans disapprove of the president’s job performance.

Trump’s appearance at CPAC was a time for the president to reset the agenda. Using his bully pulpit, Trump had an opportunity to assure his conservative base that the administration is moving to keep the promises President Trump made on the campaign trail.

Here was a chance to explain how he will make his vision of governance a reality; to identify how the Democratic party is obstructing the policies the American people voted to implement last November; to outline, for Congress and for the people, the way forward on achieving the repeal of Obamacare, tax reform, the border wall, and the steps necessary to deconstruct the administrative state.

Instead, the president gave a vapid campaign speech, complete with allusions to action in the future and assurances that conservatives will win again.

He began by, rightfully, criticizing the “fake news” media for publishing inaccurate stories. The liberal media certainly deserves to be criticized, but the president already did so last week.

When the president finally addressed the policies his administration will pursue, he did so using oft-repeated phrases from the campaign trail. The gist of the entire speech was presented in one passage:

We will reduce your taxes. We will cut your regulations. We will support our police. We will defend our flag. We will rebuild our military. We will take care of our great, great veterans … we will fix our broken and embarrassing trade deals … we will cut wasteful spending. We will promote our values. We will rebuild our inner cities. We will bring back our jobs and our dreams. And by the way, we will protect our second amendment.

The priority facing Republicans is keeping six years of campaign promises and fully repealing Obamacare. There are good plans for doing so introduced in Congress, but Trump didn’t mention them. “Obamacare doesn’t work … we’re changing it,” he said. “We’re gonna make it much better. We’re gonna make it less expensive.”

Those are great promises, but the American people don’t need promises. They need promises kept. This government needs leadership to ensure that they are kept. And so far the president is acting more like a cheerleader than a leader.

In this respect, the president’s speech highlights a problem with CPAC itself. Just what is the Conservative Political Action Conference conserving? What plans of action are in development to achieve conservative victory?

To be sure, there are breakout sessions where those conversations are happening. But panel attendance is slim. For every conservative looking for an opportunity to advance conservatism, there is someone else looking to make a quick buck. There are times at CPAC when one even wonders if the people speaking are there to promote a legislative agenda, or just to sell a new book or land a new job.

Conservatism has enough cheerleaders. Our movement needs leadership. When the president of the United States tells conservatives “Our victory was a win for everyone who believes in conservative values,” he has the responsibility to demonstrate how that is the case.

How can he lead? Start by pressuring this hesitant Congress to take immediate action to repeal Obamacare and endorse a replacement plan. Instruct Congress to end the liberal judiciary’s interference with executive branch’s legal authority to restrict immigration.

“The era of empty talk is over,” President Trump said. “Now is the time for action”

Those are words the conservative movement needs to apply to itself. Those are words conservatives want the president to live by. But if President Trump’s speech is an indication of things to come, you can’t always get what you want. (For more from the author of “President Trump’s CPAC Speech Sounded Great … But Was a Total Disappointment. Sad!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Another Obamanation Undone: Trump and Sessions Take the Federal Government out of Your Kids’ Bathroom

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Obama administration’s edict on transgender bathrooms in public schools is no more. On Wednesday, President Trump revoked the rules granting transgender individuals access to the sex-segregated facilities of their choice.

“The Department of Justice has a duty to enforce the law,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement about withdrawing the guidance. “Congress, state legislatures, and local governments are in a position to adopt appropriate policies or laws addressing this issue.”

Sessions cited the legal ambiguity and confusion of Obama’s directive for the repeal.

“The prior guidance documents did not contain sufficient legal analysis or explain how the interpretation was consistent with the language of Title IX. The Department of Education and the Department of Justice therefore have withdrawn the guidance,” Sessions said.

“SHOCK!” “HORROR!” “FASCISM!” … countless will cry, as media outlets spin the story as an inhumane assault on transgender “rights.”

But the headline hysteria begs the question of what sort of “rights” we’re talking about here. What right does any human have, on a metaphysical level, to force an institution to accommodate their bathroom preferences, at the expense of everyone else?

What right, for that matter, does anyone have to force an institution to abandon its beliefs in basic human biology?

Even in the philosophically impoverished vision that disputed rights aren’t rights until the Supreme Court finds the stilted grounds on which to manufacture them (e.g. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s infamous “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life”), the court has, to date, issued no such fiat.

Ergo, no such “right” exists, even on dubious grounds.

If anything is truly concerning about this development is that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos — who has, of course, been vilified as the most extreme arch-conservative by anti-Trumpers — reportedly disagreed with repealing the rules, and that the president’s siding with Attorney General Sessions was what tipped the scales in the decision.

If anything is truly concerning about this development, it is the news that Education Secretary does not bode well. This latest outrage is founded on the same lie that fuels some of the most prominent thinking behind school choice — that government-run schools, rather than parents, are the sole, rightful educators of children.

Even without the regulations masquerading as guidance, there is nothing prohibiting parents from pressuring their local school boards to ensure access to transgender bathrooms or transgender-based sexual education. Sessions’ directive simply removes the federal government from the issue altogether (as it should be).

The only purpose of such a rule from the federal Department of Education would be to force the parents of local public schools to accept the anti-scientific arguments that would normalize transgenderism at the institutions that teach their children [read: child abuse] in Manhattan, Dallas, and Salt Lake City, all the same. In short, some parents will not teach what their leftist counterparts want, and must subsequently be forced to comply.

This may come as a shock to many, but a child’s education is the duty of his or her parents — not the state — which acts simply as a subcontractor in the issue.

What children learn – either through curriculum or example – is best decided by those who brought them into this world. Our political institutions and/or governments should merely reflect those decisions.

The fact that parents disagree on this bathroom issue only serves to stress the point that these questions are best addressed at the local level, rather than by technocratic central planners in a faceless bureaucracy. (For more from the author of “Another Obamanation Undone: Trump and Sessions Take the Federal Government out of Your Kids’ Bathroom” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Project Veritas Undercover Audio Exposes CNN Bias

/0 Comments/in , /by

Now that the presidential election is over, James O’Keefe, the undercover videographer of Project Veritas, is turning his sights on the media. Thursday, he released 119 hours of audio secretly taped inside CNN’s headquarters. He will be releasing another 100 hours soon. A disgruntled CNN employee made the recordings in 2009. Employees — including management — are heard freely expressing their biases and how they affect news coverage.

A small portion of the 119 hours of material has been transcribed already. Nicki Robertson, a CNN assignment desk editor, says, “Fox News, I think Fox News is unbearable. It’s horrible.” She goes on in a disdainful voice, “It’s so American.”

Richard T. Griffiths, vice president and senior editorial director at CNN, is heard explaining that the fundamental role of a journalist is in part to “aid the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” He adds, “It’s actually one of the things I can be most proud of as a journalist.”

In another clip, Miss X — who apparently is the undercover journalist — can be heard questioning why an outdated poll was being used, regarding Americans’ opinions of (as yet unconfirmed) Supreme Court appointee Sonia Sotomayor. Arthur Brice answers her: “I don’t think we stand to change how people think of her.”

Arthur Brice is the executive editor of CNN. Joe Sterling was the news desk editor for CNN’s The Wire at the time. Sterling is also heard saying in regards to whether global warming is caused by man, “There’s no debate.” He compares it to “born-agains’” absolute belief in creationism and says, “I admit, I’m a little biased. The only spin I think is going on is by Republicans.”

The Scandal is Going to Get Bigger

O’Keefe is utilizing crowdsourcing, asking for help transcribing the audio since he lacks the manpower. He has been criticized in the past for selectively releasing only parts of his undercover videos, so the release of raw material should dispel those accusations. His organization compares its new strategy to that of Wikileaks.

“The media’s relationship with the establishment renders them incapable of challenging the normative order in our society, while the media systematically targets and shames any independent media organization or citizen which attempts to ferret out real information,” O’Keefe says. “So it’s time to turn their tactics and rules against them.”

While O’Keefe doesn’t think this will necessarily result in the demise of CNN, he told Gateway Pundit, “[E]very time we have previously released undercover audio/video someone does end up fired, someone does end up in jail.” He says he has operatives currently working at several media outlets. He is also offering $10,000 to people who can provide inside evidence of “corruption, malfeasance and wrongdoing” within the newsroom, and he promises to protect his sources’ identities.

The biased so-called mainstream media is already going on the defensive protecting one of their own primary outlets, claiming that most of the CNN employees caught recorded no longer work there. That is fake news. Most of them still work there and in fact at least one has been promoted.

(For more from the author of “Project Veritas Undercover Audio Exposes CNN Bias” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.