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.

North Korea Suspected Behind Murder of Leader’s Half-Brother: U.S. Sources

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. government strongly believes that North Korean agents murdered the estranged half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Malaysia, U.S. government sources said on Tuesday.

American authorities have not yet determined exactly how Kim Jong Nam was killed, according to two sources, who did not provide specific evidence to support the U.S. government’s view.

A South Korean government source also had said that Kim Jong Nam had been murdered in Malaysia. He did not provide further details.

South Korea’s foreign ministry said it could not confirm the reports, and the country’s intelligence agency could not immediately be reached for comment.

In Washington, there was no immediate response to a request for comment from the Trump administration, which faces a stiff challenge from a defiant North Korea over its nuclear arms program and the test of a ballistic missile last weekend. (Read more from “North Korea Suspected Behind Murder of Leader’s Half-Brother: U.S. Sources” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Russia Sends Spy Ship Near US Coast, Deploys Banned Missiles at Home, Officials Say

/0 Comments/in , /by

A Russian spy ship was spotted patrolling off the East Coast of the United States on Tuesday morning, the first such instance during the Trump administration — and the same day it was learned the Kremlin had secretly deployed controversial cruise missiles inside Russia and flew within 200 yards of a U.S. Navy destroyer, U.S. officials told Fox News.

The Russian ship was in international waters, 70 miles off the coast of Delaware and heading north at 10 knots, according to one official. The U.S. territory line is 12 nautical miles.

It was not immediately clear where the ship is headed.

Later Tuesday, a U.S. official confirmed to Fox News that Russia had deployed ground-launched cruise missiles to two locations inside the country in December. The New York Times first reported that the Obama administration had previously seen the missiles — then in a testing phase — as a violation of a 1987 treaty between the U.S. and Russia that banned ground-launched intermediate-range missiles.

But Russia has pressed ahead with its program, apparently testing a Trump administration which has sought better ties with Moscow — but is also fresh off the loss of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who resigned Monday night in the wake of a scandal surrounding his communications with Russia. (Read more from “Russia Sends Spy Ship Near US Coast, Deploys Banned Missiles at Home, Officials Say” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

House Dems Troll Trump With Valentine’s Day Card

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) on Tuesday mocked President Trump with a Valentine’s Day card featuring Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Trump’s having a tough day,” the DCCC said Tuesday in a tweet. “We thought a Valentine’s Day card could cheer him up!”

The tweet included an image of a card, which featured a picture of Putin wearing red heart-shaped glasses.

The image included a poem that read: “Roses are red. Violets are blue. We’re sorry that Putin is the only one who loves you.” . . .

“We can’t let Trump off the hook just because it’s Valentine’s Day,” the page said. “Sign our tongue-in-cheek card to remind him the resistance will never let up.” (Read more from “House Dems Troll Trump With Valentine’s Day Card” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Burlington Is the Latest Retailer to Drop Ivanka Trump’s Brand Online

/0 Comments/in , /by

The discount retailer Burlington Coat Factory no longer sells products from Ivanka Trump’s brand online.

As of Friday, the retailer’s website doesn’t show a stock of Ivanka Trump accessories and clothing. The change comes amid news of several retailers dropping the first daughter’s line in the last two weeks, including Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, and Gilt.

Burlington was selling 13 items from Ivanka’s fashion line as of Tuesday, according to Shannon Coulter, the brand strategist who started the #GrabYourWallet boycott of Trump products.

Since October, Coulter has charted which retailers do business with the Trump family on the Grab Your Wallet website. People who oppose President Donald Trump’s actions and policies were encouraged to boycott these retailers.

Some retailers have said sales of Ivanka Trump products slumped. Sales of Ivanka’s line at Nordstrom fell 32% in 2016, with the worst decline in the second half of the year as the election heated up, The Wall Street Journal reported. (Read more from “Burlington Is the Latest Retailer to Drop Ivanka Trump’s Brand Online” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Scalia Breaks It Down: Is There a ‘Right’ to Immigrate to the US?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Monday marks a year since the tragedy of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death while on a hunting trip in west Texas, and his legal insight remains as poignant and pertinent as the day he left this world.

The Ninth Circuit court has recently come under fire from all sides for their “absurd,” “dangerous,” and “damningly silly” ruling against President Donald Trump’s travel suspension. And the current dustup between the judiciary and the executive — as well as the impending nomination fight over Scalia’s successor — raises the question on the anniversary of his death: What would Justice Scalia have to say about all this?

While we will never know the answer to that on this side of paradise, the late jurist’s dissent in a previous immigration case might offer some insight.

The case was Zadvydas v. Davis in 2001. The question before the court was whether or not the executive branch had a right to detain an alien set for deportation indefinitely, or if the 90-day detention period created some sort of “right” to be released back into the general population.

While the 5-4 majority ruled that the detention period was limited to 90 days, Scalia dissented (joined by Clarence Thomas), arguing that the rights of aliens to be deported run along the same lines as those at the border seeking entry.

Here’s what Scalia had to say about both:

“Insofar as a claimed legal right to release into this country is concerned. “An alien under final order of removal stands on an equal footing with an inadmissible alien at the threshold of entry: He has no such right.

“We are offered no justification why an alien under a valid and final order of removal – which has totally extinguished whatever right to presence in this country he possessed – has any greater due process right to be released into the country than an alien at the border seeking entry.”

Scalia makes this point its simplest, by offering: “[A]n inadmissible alien at the border has no right to be in the United States.”

In the case, Scalia also goes back to Justice Robert Jackson’s dissent from in Shaughnessy v. United States in 1953, which Justice Frankfurter joined:

“Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will. Nothing in the Constitution requires admission or sufferance of aliens hostile to our scheme of government.”

This, of course, doesn’t mean that someone’s human rights are contingent upon their citizenship, but that but that there is no such thing as a right for a person to enter the country of which they are not a citizen. “[Another previous immigration case] at least involved aliens under final order of deportation,” explained Scalia in the Zadvydas dissent. “But all it held is that they could not be subjected to the punishment of hard labor without a judicial trial. I am sure they cannot be tortured, as well–but neither prohibition has anything to do with their right to be released into the United States.”

Yet the Ninth Circuit has ruled that every potential migrant in a terror-infested warzone of a failed state now has constitutional due process rights to come in whenever they want, that government institutions somehow suffer “Concrete and Particularized Injury” as a result, and that campaign statements are fair game in evaluating a law.

A year since his passing, Scalia’s absence has left an unmistakable void on American jurisprudence, and time will only tell if Trump’s Supreme Court pick will prove up to the task of following such a titanic presence on the bench.

One thing is certain, however: As the federal circuits slip further and further into absolute legal nonsense like that seen last week, Justice Antonin Scalia’s witty, commonsensical clarity will only be missed more and more. (For more from the author of “Scalia Breaks It Down: Is There a ‘Right’ to Immigrate to the US?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Shot Through the Heart: Pakistan Bans Valentine’s Day Because It’s Not Islamic

/0 Comments/in , /by

Valentine’s Day has been banned from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The nation’s high court in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital city, ruled Monday that the country’s citizens must refrain from celebrating the holiday “with immediate effect.”

A citizen petition made its way to the superior court one day before the holiday commences. Abdul Waheed, who drafted the document, claimed Valentine’s Day is “against the teachings of Islam and should be banned immediately,” CNN reports. The court concurred with Waheed, claiming the holiday clashes with Muslim life. The Islamabad High Court ruled that the festivities are actually a “cover” to spread “immorality, nudity, and indecency… which is against our rich traditions and values.”

Valentine’s Day has become increasingly popular among Pakistani youth and has acted as a boon for florists and business owners. However, Islamist leaders feel the society at large has been placed under direct attack with the embrace of the Western holiday, and print and electronic media in the country have been warned about promoting the holiday’s events and activities.

In February 2016, Pakistani President Mamnoon Hussain added his voice to the masses calling for the ban. Hussain stated, “Valentine’s Day has no connection to our culture and it should be avoided.”

Jamaat-e-Islami, a hardline Islamist group with millions of followers, has led the effort to protect Pakistan against parts of the country that “wants to impose Western values and culture on our youth by celebrating Valentine’s day,” according to an anti-Valentine’s Day resolution passed last year in Peshawar. “There is no place in our culture and in our civilization for such an unnecessary and rude day, which aims to spread vulgarity and indecency amongst the youth,” the resolution continued.

Pakistan’s Islamic traditions have created an environment that is extremely hostile to religious freedom and basic human rights. For example, identifying or being revealed as a homosexual in Pakistan can result in long-term imprisonment, and the state is also notorious for discriminating against religious minorities.

Pakistan does not have anything remotely resembling free speech. Criticizing Islam or Muhammad can result in punishments ranging from a harsh fine to a death sentence. The majority of Pakistanis support the state’s blasphemy laws. (For more from the author of “Shot Through the Heart: Pakistan Bans Valentine’s Day Because It’s Not Islamic” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.