This Is What REAL Hope Looks Like: GOP Senators Fight for Families of Victims of Illegal Aliens

/0 Comments/in , /by

The 115th United States Congress has only been in session for a few days, but Republicans are already taking advantage of their overwhelming majority.

On Thursday, Senator Joni Ernst, R-Iowa (F, 59%) released a statement announcing that she, along with Senators Chuck Grassley, R-Ind. (D, 66%), Deb Fischer, R-Neb. (F, 55%), and Ben Sasse, R-Neb. (A, 94%), reintroduced a piece of legislation that would require federal officials to take custody of illegal immigrants “charged with a crime resulting in the death or serious bodily injury of another person.”

The legislation, known as Sarah’s Law, was named to honor Sarah Root, a 21-year-old Iowa woman who was killed last January in the “sanctuary city” of Omaha, Neb., by 19-year-old Edwin Mejia, an illegal immigrant who was driving drunk three times over the legal limit, and drag racing. Mejia, a Honduran native who entered the United States as an “unaccompanied minor” in 2013, disappeared after posting the $5,000 bail and has been at large ever since.

“Mr. Mejia has been on the [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s] Most Wanted List for more than nine months — that’s time he should have been behind bars,” Senator Sasse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in the press release this week. “Congress has an opportunity to make sure this never happens again. Sarah’s Law would make it absolutely clear that ICE must immediately detain any illegal alien who kills someone.”

Thursday’s move to reintroduce the law offers families of individuals killed by illegal immigrants renewed hope that their loved ones will be vindicated. If passed, the legislation would require ICE officials to “make reasonable efforts to identify and provide relevant information to the crime victims or their families.”

“It is unconscionable that nearly one year after Sarah’s death, Edwin Mejia remains at-large, and the fact remains that today U.S. immigration law does not require federal immigration authorities to detain those here illegally who harm American citizens,” Senator Ernst said. “Although nothing can bring Sarah back to her family or heal the wounds of such unimaginable loss, we have an obligation to the American people to ensure that no citizen falls victim to this injustice again. Sarah’s Law is about honoring Sarah, and her legacy; I have already had conversations with the incoming administration, and am hopeful that they will work with Congress to pursue

In his nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in July, Donald Trump described Sarah Root as “just one more American life that wasn’t worth protecting. One more child to sacrifice on the altar of open borders.” The president-elect made illegal immigration a focal point of his presidential campaign, inviting family members of those killed by illegals to join him onstage at the RNC and to speak at various campaign stops.

“We are sadly hearing of these instances far too often. If the Obama administration won’t protect our citizens, Congress will make it clear illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes will be detained. We must do everything possible to prevent the pain Sarah’s loved ones and too many others have endured,” said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. (F, 51%).

Since Sarah’s Law was first introduced in June 2016, the legislation has gained new support from Senators Jerry Moran, R-Kan. (D, 67%), Pat Roberts, John Thune, R-S.D. (F, 44%), Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%), and Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. (C, 72%). Congressman David Young, R-Ind. (F, 38%) will lead a House companion bill.

Sen. Cruz indicated that the November election afforded Congress “an extraordinary chance” to strengthen border security and restore the rule of law in a post-Obama America.

“The last eight years under the Obama Administration have seen a disastrous deterioration of the rule of law and an unwillingness to justly prosecute those who break our laws,” said Senator Cruz. “But now we have an extraordinary chance to reverse that course, secure our border, and strengthen our immigration laws. I am proud to be a sponsor of Sarah’s Law and other similar law enforcement measures that will deter illegal immigration, and ensure those who disregard our immigration laws and bring harm to our citizens are held accountable.” (For more from the author of “This Is What REAL Hope Looks Like: GOP Senators Fight for Families of Victims of Illegal Aliens” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

When It’s Black on White Crime the Left Goes Color Blind

/0 Comments/in , /by

Why is it that when whites engage in violent acts against blacks, many on the left assume that those criminal acts must be hate-based, but when the tables are turned and the violence is black on white, many on the left no longer see color, looking for any explanation other than racial hate? Why the double standard?

According to CNN’s Don Lemon, the horrific kidnapping and torture of a mentally disabled white man by a group of four black teenagers — who had the audacity and stupidity to air it on Facebook live — wasn’t really evil.

Responding to Matt Lewis, who had commented on the extreme “evil” nature of the crime, Lemon replied, “I don’t think it’s evil. I don’t think it’s evil. I think these are young people, and I think they have bad home training.”

Not evil? Seriously? Just young people with bad home training?

Lemon’s comment drew immediate scorn, including tweets like this: “Hey @donlemon was Dylan Roof evil? Or just the victim of bad home training?” (Dylan Roof was the young white man who slaughtered 9 black parishioners during a church service in South Carolina.)

Does anyone for a moment think that Lemon, who himself is black, would have reacted the same way had this been a horrific, white on black crime?

To be clear, I’m glad that white on black violence has been exposed in recent years thanks to cell phone cameras, and to the extent that whites specifically targeted blacks — as in the case of Dylan Roof — our outrage should be even more acute.

But why shouldn’t we be just as concerned with targeted black on white violence, as in the many examples of the infamous “knockout games”?

I understand that, in the eyes of many blacks, to reply immediately to the phrase “black lives matter” with the phrase “all lives matter” is to minimize the point they were making. But at what point can we say, “White lives matter too”? Why is that forbidden?

A recent anti-white, MTV video even mocked the idea that “blue lives matter,” since people aren’t blue. Tell that to the widows and orphans of the cops who were killed in cold blood while serving our country this year.

Being on talk radio, I’ve heard from many God-fearing, church-going, authority-honoring black callers who shared with me their stories of being racially profiled, of experiencing discrimination, of even fearing for their lives at times simply because they were black, and I don’t doubt their stories for a moment.

While flying home recently, I was upgraded to first class and sat next to a black gentleman who could have passed for a former (or even current) football player. As we talked, he told me he was the president of a university, holding a J.D. and a Ph.D. When we discussed the issue of discrimination, he shared with me the obstacles he had to overcome and how, to this day, when he sits in first class, people look at him like he’s sitting in the wrong place or else assume he must be an athlete. After all, why else would a large black man be flying in first class?

So, to repeat, my intent here is not to minimize anti-black sentiment in America; my intent is to expose the hypocritical double standards, and this recent, ugly incident, has brought all this to the surface.

Remember that the torturers were yelling “f**k white people” and “f**k Trump” as they abused this young man, yet Democratic strategist Symone Sanders (also black), appearing on the same discussion panel with Don Lemon, wasn’t sure it was a hate crime. She said,

If we start going around and anytime someone says or does something egregious or bad and sickening in sense. In connection with the president-elect Donald Trump or even President Obama for that matter because of their political leanings, that’s slippery territory. That is not a hate crime.

I actually believe she has a point here, albeit a minor one, but again, it’s the double-standard and the hypocrisy that concern me, since this is the very thing we’ve been subjected to for the last 8 years, namely, assuming that white criticism of President Obama must be race-based. Yet when it’s black on white hatred in conjunction with black-on-Trump hatred, we have to tread carefully lest we head into “slippery territory.”

To ask the obvious question, what would Sanders have said if, two weeks before Obama’s first inauguration, four young white people kidnapped and tortured a mentally disabled black person, shouting, “f**k black people” and “f**k Obama”?

Wouldn’t hatred of Obama equal hatred of blacks in the eyes of Sanders, and wouldn’t she quickly brand this a glaring example of a dangerous hate crime that could be a portent of worse things to come? (For the record, within 24 hours of her statement quoted here, when pressed by Anderson Cooper, Sanders did acknowledge the kidnapping and torture as a hate crime, following the lead of the prosecutors.)

For a glaring example of hypocrisy, right from the White House, what about the statement of Press Secretary Josh Earnest, when pressed by the media about whether this was a hate crime?

He would not answer directly, since he claimed he had not yet discussed it with the president and was waiting for official word from law enforcement, stressing how important it was for them to do come to their conclusions first. But this is the very thing that the Obama administration has not done when controversial, white on black cases came to national attention.

To give one case in point, think back to the 2009 arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, a black man, by police Sgt. James Crowley, a white man.

When asked about the incident at a news conference that week, President Obama said, “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played.”

“But,” he added, “I think it’s fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3 … that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”

Indeed, he stated, that the arrest shows “how race remains a factor in this society” — and to repeat, he said this without knowing the facts.

The charges against Gates were, in fact, dropped (he was trying to “break in” to his own house when a neighbor called to report the suspicious activity), but Sgt. Crowley had not acted stupidly, nor did the arrest have anything to do with race, which is one reason why President Obama subsequently invited Gates and Crowley to have a beer with him and Vice President Biden at the White House.

Yet when it comes to a heinous, black on white hate crime today, the White House doesn’t want to speak prematurely, wanting to let local law enforcement do its work.

After Earnest’s statement, President Obama did refer to the kidnapping and torture as a “despicable” hate crime, and other black voices, like Montel Williams, denounced the crime in the strongest terms. But the reaction of others, like Lemon and Sanders and Earnest, points to a larger issue, and it is one we can’t ignore.

As for Lemon’s contention that the kids were raised poorly, that may be true — although the grandmother who raised one of the accused kidnappers would strongly differ with that assessment — but plenty of people who commit evil acts were not raised well, and we don’t minimize their deeds because of their unfortunate upbringing. And, again, I doubt that Lemon would have made such an excuse had the racial tables been turned.

Of course, the whole category of “hate crimes” carries its own set of controversies, but that’s not the focus here. The focus is to expose left-wing, anti-white hypocrisy, and if we really care about justice, that means justice for all.

As for the black young people who committed this crime, while they deserve justice, I pray for their redemption as well, along with the physical and emotional recovery of the white young person who was abused.

(For more from the author of “When It’s Black on White Crime the Left Goes Color Blind” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Democratic Party Goes Left: Just What Republicans Want

/0 Comments/in , /by

In November, more than 8,750,000 Californians voted for Hillary Clinton; only about 4.5 million voted for Donald Trump. Similarly, New York went for Secretary Clinton by 4.55 million to 2.8 million votes, a substantial margin of 1.75 million ballots.

What you have just read constitutes about all the good news there is these days for the Democrats.

Much is being made in some quarters about the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. In fact, she did not.

Secretary Clinton won nearly 65.8 million votes, according to the authoritative Cook political report. Donald Trump won almost 63 million votes. The total variance was about 2.85 million votes in favor of the candidate who lost the Electoral College.

However, what has been reported almost nowhere is that 7.8 million votes were cast for other presidential candidates. Libertarian Gary Johnson, a relatively right-leaning former Republican, won 4.5 million votes. Independent Republican Evan McMullin took 725,000 ballots and the Constitution Party’s Darrell Castle came out with 202,000. Together, that’s something over 5.4 million votes for non-Republican conservative presidential candidates nationwide.

The rather over-covered candidate of the Green Part, Jill Stein, received 1.46 million votes, and other third-party and predominantly liberal also-rans took about one million votes total.

The math is pretty straightforward: The Republican nominee and other conservative or conservative-leaning candidates accrued about 68.5 million votes. Secretary Clinton and other liberal candidates garnered about 68.2 million. In sum, as to the presidency, the Right beat the Left by roughly 300,000 votes. A rather narrow margin, yes, but the now-received fact that liberalism, in sheer numbers, beat conservatism is simply untrue.

Over the past eight years, the story of the Democrats’ future has become far shakier than the numbers just noted might indicate. As Eric Levitz writes in New York Magazine, a fortress of weary liberal elitism:

Since President Obama took office, more than 900 Democratic state legislators have been ousted. In January 2009, the party occupied 29 governor’s mansions. Today, it lays claim to 15. The GOP — the party that was supposed to be headed for a great crack-up — holds 33. In 24 states, Republicans control the Executive branch and both legislative houses. Of course, they now enjoy the same trifecta in Washington, D.C.

Only five states now have Democratic governors and state legislatures and the GOP controls 69 of 99 state legislative bodies. This pattern seems unlikely to change, given Democrats’ concentration in urban areas. As the Washington Post’s Amber Phillips notes, “Because Democrats are clustered in one area of (a) state, they have less of a say in who represents congressional (and state-level) districts in the rest of the state.”

Although as an unabashed partisan I rejoice in these numbers, I do not write the above to crow or to sneer at the Democratic Party. Rather, I report them to make a larger comment about a narrative now emerging, strongly, within that once-venerable political institution: Calls from many of its leading stalwarts to turn it harder Left-ward are profoundly ill-advised if Democrats ever care about winning nationally again.

“We’re spending all of our resources on broadcast television chasing this mythical unicorn white swing voter,” says Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher, who argues that the nation’s changing demographics — it is increasingly less white — demands less focus on disaffected lower-income white voters.

Eric Levitz summarizes the growing chorus of “turn Left, young man,” Democrats this way:

Instead of channeling that anger toward real, progressive solutions for the middle (and working) class’s legitimate problems, Trump directed it toward the most vulnerable people in our society, as right-wing populists always have. Clinton failed to counter this appeal, because she refused to embrace populist, class politics.

Former Democratic Senator and Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Lieberman, now an independent, said in a recent interview that he fears a “real attempt by the left-left” to seize control of the Democratic agenda and public appeal. His fear is justified: former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, former Obama Administration “Green Jobs” czar” Van Jones, and hard-Left Congressman Keith Ellison, among other prominent Democrats, are calling for this strategy explicitly.

Why is it unwise, politically? Because America is not a hard-Left country. Disproportionate Democratic majorities in New York and California do not a national majority make. As CNN reporter John King said shortly after the November election, “America is a center-right country. It is a lot more conservative, especially out in the heartland, than Democrats think.”

There is also a dynamic at play for which proponents of an aggressive liberal statism fail to account: The Electoral College is a device built into the Constitution that, unlike the finding of hitherto unimagined “rights” lurking in fanciful constitutional penumbras, cannot suddenly be reinterpreted to mean what its liberal opponents want. Its mechanism is very clear and undisputed, articulated with exactitude in a written text.

Can the Constitution be amended? Sure. But is populist rage so great that people across the country would support altering its plain text, one that has endured and served well since 1789? Will such an enterprise be appealing to them, especially since such a change would calcify the suzerainty of the liberal regions into the distant future? No — or to borrow some language from Winston Churchill, this is nonsense up with which the American people will not put.

So, how do the Democrats reclaim political viability, especially at a time when recalibrating congressional districts (which determine presidential electors) in their favor is a pipe dream? I have no particular wisdom for them, other than that, as a conservative, I hope they do go radically to the Left. That way the defeat of dangerous and extreme liberalism will accelerate and deepen all the more. (For more from the author of “The Democratic Party Goes Left: Just What Republicans Want” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

When Marriage Can Be Anything, Marriage Can Be Anything

/0 Comments/in , /by

It is only irrational animus, bigotry, and hatred that causes some to deny that human beings and fairground rides cannot marry. Love is love, and sometimes love extends to the soaring tracks, twisting hairpin curves, and thrilling loop-de-loops of roller coasters.

Yes. Two women have married, not each other, which would not be unusual these days, but each has married a roller coaster. Not the same roller coaster, of course; that would be absurd; different roller coasters.

One lady, a Miss Wolfe, 33, church organist, fell in love with the roller coaster in Knoebels Amusement Park, Pennsylvania. According to one report, “Although she faces discrimination from employers, most of her family and friends have been supportive. ‘I’m not hurting anyone and I can’t help it,’ she said. ‘It’s a part of who I am.’”

Don’t scoff. No one chooses to be an objectum-sexual; it is something which is forced upon one. What’s that? What’s an objectum-sexual? As defined by the second wedded lady, Linda, 56, who tied her knot to the backside of a roller coaster, an objectum-sexual is a person who “has romantic feelings for inanimate objects.”

Psychology Today reports many are objectum-sexuals, folks who view their objects of love as “equal” partners. Who isn’t for Equality? Reports are coming in from the across the globe of objectum-sexuals marrying smart phones, steam engines, video game characters, rocks, trees, dolls, electronic devices, radios, pillows, cars, and, yes, the Eiffel Tower.

The Self-Sexuals

Animus, bigotry, and hatred not only motivates people to deny the rights of objectum-sexuals, but also to disparage the needs and desires of self-sexuals. Self-sexuals are people who love best themselves, making it natural that the objects of their matrimonial instincts are, well, themselves.

No less conservative an organ than Good Housekeeping reports that “self-marriage is a small but growing movement, with consultants and self-wedding planners popping up across the world.”

One such person is Brooklynite Erika Anderson who recently married herself. “It wasn’t an easy decision,” she said. “I had cold feet for 35 years. But then I decided it was time to settle down. To get myself a whole damn apartment. To celebrate birthday #36 by wearing an engagement ring and saying: YES TO ME. I even made a registry, because this is America.”

There is even, because this is America, a website, I Married Me, which advises readers to “Choose love.” Love is, after all, love. The site provides the unofficial motto for the self-marriage movement, “To honor myself is to understand and acknowledge that I am worthy”. Anybody can marry themselves, even folks who are already married to others, or to objects.

“It’s not a legal process — you won’t get any tax breaks for marrying yourself. It’s more a ‘rebuke’ of tradition, says Rebecca Traister, author of All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation.

Rebuke?

The Rebuke of History and Tradition and Nature

Tradition insists that marriage is between one man, one woman; the two become “one flesh.” The pairs came together to procreate and care for not just each other, but for their created families. Marriages were the result of the natural state of mankind, driven by necessities of biology, the environment, and even religion. No government dared risk interfering with this fundamental and organic process. To have meddled would have invited charges of monumental hubris.

But things change. Governments recognized Equality trumped Nature, and so mandated that history and tradition be overthrown. But first they were borrowed from. History and tradition insisted that marriage was the state between two people, so government meddling dictated any two people could marry.

But it will quickly be realized (and is being realized) that history and tradition can be no guide whatsoever, because history and tradition, while they do say marriage was for pairs, also insist, in the strongest possible terms, that marriage is only for man-woman pairs.

So history and tradition must be rebuked.

Those who want to keep with capital-Tradition are no longer allowed to do so. Traditionalists are still allowed to marry one another in the traditional way, but they are now forced to agree that government-defined “marriages” are equivalent to actual marriages. Governments have not, as yet, moved to “bless” object- and self-marriages, but there is no good reason for them not to.

And if people can marry roller coasters and themselves, why cannot sons marry their mothers? Cosmopolitan reports, “A Mom Fell in Love With Her Son and Plans to Have Children With Him,” which they call “genetic sexual attraction”. There is already a forum for interested people. Why not marriage?

After all, when marriage can be anything, marriage can be anything. (For more from the author of “When Marriage Can Be Anything, Marriage Can Be Anything” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Let’s Be Pro-Life Champions, Not Just Vote Casters

/0 Comments/in , /by

“Radical hospitality and generosity.” That’s a phrase I heard Carter Snead, a law professor at Notre Dame, use this fall and I can’t get it out of my head. It’s an attractive phrase. It draws you in. It seems to call out to us that we are not alone, suggesting home and welcome. It’s a phrase that radiates hope and promise. It’s also a call to action.

It’s a notion similar to the one expressed by the words of Emma Lazarus inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty:

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Are we going to live up to these words in the foreseeable future?

That’s a real question people have on their hearts and minds. There’s an uncertainty in the air, which centers on a Washington in transition. And with the Republican party in the majority in Congress, one of the first issues that has come up is defunding Planned Parenthood. There are many columns about the merits of this; this is not one of them. I’m grateful for Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s commitment here. But winning this issue should be beyond Republican vs. Democrat dynamics. It should be about “radical hospitality and generosity.” (Read more from “Let’s Be Pro-Life Champions, Not Just Vote Casters” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Texas Governor Pledges to Sign Anti-Sanctuary City Bill

/2 Comments/in , /by

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott says he expects the Legislature to pass an anti-sanctuary city bill this year, opening a new front in the battle over “local control.”

Weighing in on the intensifying national immigration debate, the Republican governor pledged to sign S.B. 4, which would require municipalities to enforce migrant detainers at local jails and withhold state grants if they don’t comply.

“I will work with the Legislature to compel government bodies and employees to live up to their oath of office,” Abbott declared.

Cities, counties, or universities that violate the law will face a “multitude of consequence, ranging from financial penalties to removal from office,” the former state attorney general said.

Abbott, who has clashed with Sheriff Lupe Valdez over sanctuary policies in Dallas County, took aim at newly elected Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez, who vowed to remove Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from the Austin jail.

“It’s erroneous to have an attitude that laws are like some big buffet where you can choose one item and ignore other items,” Abbott said, referring to sanctuary cities and campuses.

Federal law states: “A federal, state, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service [now ICE] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any citizen.”

Responding to reports of crimes committed by illegal immigrants—some of them after multiple deportation—Hernandez told The Texas Tribune: “I just don’t think you solve the criminal justice process by deporting them. We talk about being progressive. I believe we need to lead the way.”

Larry Korkmas, president of Texans for Immigration Reduction and Enforcement, said sanctuary policies punish taxpayers while municipal and school officials complain about chronic funding shortages.

“If we enforced [immigration] laws, we would reduce our medical welfare and education costs,” Korkmas told Watchdog.org.

In introducing S.B. 4, state Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, cited the election of Donald Trump, saying, “The American people made it clear that solving our illegal immigration crisis must be a priority. We cannot sit idly by and allow local policies to undercut efforts made at the federal and state level.”

Bob Dane, executive director of the nonpartisan Federation for American Immigration Reform, said, “Local politicians who support sanctuary policies are, in effect, giving the middle finger to federal law enforcement and, in so doing, giving it to every law-abiding, taxpaying resident.”

“Those days are over,” Dane told Watchdog from his Washington, D.C., office. “Since there is no longer fear of recrimination by [President] Barack Obama’s iron-fisted Department of Justice, Texas should pass [S.B. 4] and Abbott should sign it. The rule of law will be restored and Texas will be a safer place.”

Jeff Judson, a policy fellow with the market-oriented Heartland Institute, agreed.

“I think Abbott is smart enough to know how [antithetical] sanctuary cities are to voters. It fits with his belief that cities have abused their home-rule ‘local control’ and are violating freedoms the state is pledged to uphold,” said Judson, a former councilman in the San Antonio suburb of Olmos Park. (For more from the author of “Texas Governor Pledges to Sign Anti-Sanctuary City Bill” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Holding Obamacare Repeal Hostage for Replace Guarantees Its Defeat

/0 Comments/in , /by

After six years of pushing for a repeal of Obamacare, some on the right are now critiquing Congress’ effort for a full repeal. Their arguments do more to confuse the issue than to present a viable path forward for eliminating the harmful effects of this law.

Congressional Republicans appear set to finally repeal Obamacare using reconciliation, a process that allows them to overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate and pass budget-related legislation with a simple majority of the chamber’s members.

The repeal bill would include a transition period to give Congress time to debate how best to replace Obamacare with a series of patient-centered reforms, each of which would address specific problems in the health care system.

But critics of this approach derisively dub it “repeal and delay” and assert that it is based on a fatally flawed strategy that inevitably presents the GOP with several insoluble problems.

They claim that repealing Obamacare in this way guarantees market instability, higher premiums, and ultimately the loss of coverage for millions of Americans. This is because the insurance regulations mandated by the law may not be included in the reconciliation bill.

As a consequence, the critics argue that so-called “repeal and delay” carries with it significant political risks that will come back to haunt the GOP.

If that weren’t enough, the critics also contend, counterintuitively, that repealing Obamacare first makes replacing it more difficult.

According to the American Enterprise Institute’s Joseph Antos and James Capretta, the effect of repealing Obamacare before replacing it makes “it much more difficult to build a broad political coalition for the replacement plan.”

Antos and Capretta say that under such an approach, Republicans would eventually be forced to “reverse course and take steps to provide some kind of emergency insurance” for those negatively impacted by repeal because of the political backlash that would result.

Similarly, Heather R. Higgins and Phil Kerpen argue in a separate piece that “Democrats would have little incentive to come to the table on a ‘replace’ bill” in such an environment. And Peter Suderman, writing at Reason, argues that the current approach would set up “a political and policy equilibrium that is likely to make more effective reforms even more difficult.”

The implicit assumption in each of these critiques is that Democrats are willing to repeal Obamacare now just so long as we replace it with market-based reforms that Republicans can support.

Given this, some Republicans have proposed their own repeal plans. And they all largely reflect this common belief that Obamacare can only be repealed and replaced if it’s done simultaneously.

But the fundamental problem with this approach is that it actually poses greater political risk for the GOP, makes repeal less likely, and ensures that the replace debate will occur in the context of the framework created by Obamacare.

Holding repeal hostage for replace perpetuates the current market instability, increasing premiums, and coverage losses that have been the result of Obamacare. This poses significant political risks for a GOP that has consistently promised its supporters it would repeal the law as soon as it was able.

As pointed out by The Wall Street Journal, “affordability, choice and competition are due for another tumble next year under the status quo.” The health insurance market is getting worse day by day, and the American people expect Congress to stop the situation from deteriorating further.

In this environment, it will be difficult for Republicans to persuade their constituents that they are truly committed to repealing Obamacare when they now control the House, Senate, and presidency, and still can’t bring themselves to fully repeal it.

In addition, tying replace to repeal by voting on them simultaneously makes success in either effort unlikely. Congressional Democrats are unlikely to negotiate when the price of doing so is to facilitate Obamacare’s demise.

Their participation in efforts to replace the health care law while it is still on the books would acknowledge that it has been a failure, something rank-and-file Democrats have been unwilling to concede up until now despite all of the mounting evidence to the contrary.

Some critics concede that the absence of significant bipartisan support for the current replace plan means that almost every elected Republican will have to support it. Barring unified GOP support, it is unlikely that the legislation can pass the House or Senate.

Moreover, the partisan nature of this replace effort requires it to be accomplished through the same reconciliation process that critics are currently attacking, since Senate Republicans are unlikely to overcome a Democratic filibuster.

At best, such a process ensures that the GOP replacement plan can pass only by using the same controversial process that Democrats used to ram Obamacare through the Congress in the first place. That process, just as much as Obamacare’s substance, has been responsible for poisoning the debate ever since.

Legislation that combines repeal with a comprehensive package of reforms would inevitably be an enormous thousand-plus-page bill that will have been written in secret. And it will ultimately need to be quickly forced through the House and Senate, giving members and their constituents little time to read, much less understand, its numerous complicated provisions.

While the editors at National Review are correct in their assessment that building near-unanimous Republican support around such a replace plan will take time, they are wrong to assume that the end result will be “a real win.”

Instead, the most likely outcome is that Obamacare will continue to be the law of the land and any changes to it will be considered in the context of that baseline. As a consequence, efforts to enact the fundamental reforms that are needed to fix our health care system will be seriously disadvantaged.

The process to fully repeal Obamacare must begin now. The current plan to do so using budget reconciliation is a necessary first step in that process. The House and Senate did just that in the last Congress when they repealed the guts of Obamacare, and they should do at least that much again this year. Only then can the real effort begin to replace it.

Political risk, real or imagined, should not be used as an excuse for members of Congress to avoid doing the job they signed up for in November. No one said it was going to be easy. But a promise is a promise.

It’s time to repeal Obamacare. (For more from the author of “Holding Obamacare Repeal Hostage for Replace Guarantees Its Defeat” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Federal Worker Union Is Blocking Republican VA Reforms

/0 Comments/in , /by

President-elect Donald Trump promised to fire incompetent and dishonest Department of Veterans Affairs employees, but he will have to fight the American Federation of Government Employees—the largest federal worker union—every step of the way.

During the 115th Congress, Trump—along with Republican majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives—can enact sweeping reforms to improve every department and agency in the federal workplace.

Republicans controlled the 114th Congress, too, but outgoing Democratic President Barack Obama routinely threatened to veto GOP proposals.

Trump and AFGE already share some history. When the GOP presidential candidate proposed expanding a VA program that lets veterans get private medical care, AFGE quickly blasted the idea.

“Donald Trump wants to throw veterans to the wolves. Private health care for veterans would be an expensive disaster, and no one should be fooled into believing otherwise,” said AFGE National President J. David Cox Sr. (Read more from “Federal Worker Union Is Blocking Republican va Reforms” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ghana Is Leading the Way for Democracy in Africa

/0 Comments/in , /by

Ghana, a West African country, has experienced peaceful transitions of power each time there has been a change in government since the country ended military rule in 1992.

Solidifying its notable status as one of Africa’s most stable democracies, Ghana is about to embark on another handover of power from the sitting head of state to the candidate of a longtime opposition party who won the recent presidential poll.

In a testament to Ghana’s functioning democracy, the country’s outgoing president, John Mahama, who fought hard for re-election, said during his farewell state of the nation address:

I stand here today, Mr. Speaker, holding the baton of leadership prepared to pass it on with pride, goodwill, and determination to Nana Akufo-Addo and to ask all Ghanaians to cheer him on as he runs his portion of this important relay for Ghana.

The president-elect, Akufo-Addo, former attorney general and foreign minister of the county who emerged victorious in his third presidential attempt, will be sworn in as Ghana’s new president on Jan. 7.

In fact, The Heritage Foundation had a unique opportunity to welcome then-presidential candidate Akufo-Addo to Washington and hear about his vision for Ghana in October 2015.

Akufo-Addo remarked in his speech,

I thank The Heritage Foundation for inviting me to speak at one of Washington’s most celebrated centers of thought and intellectual endeavor. It is an honor to be here in such company and to see so many people eager to discuss the future of my country, Ghana, and Africa more broadly … I remain staunchly optimistic about our future. I am proud to be a Ghanaian, the people who were the first in sub-Saharan Africa to free themselves from colonial rule, and who remain the pace-setters in the development of the principles of democratic accountability, respect for human rights, and the rule of law on the African continent. And as we move toward another election, I am reminded—and proud—of how hard we have fought for our democracy.

During his presidential campaign, Akufo-Addo highlighted the damaging effects of government corruption in Ghana and plans to tackle the issue by strengthening the judiciary and enacting constitutional reforms to decentralize power from the executive branch.

At The Heritage Foundation event last year, Akufo-Addo also emphasized that “[t]here is a connection between poor democracy and poor economic performance. Short-termism and political expediency in regard to elections tend to correlate with a lack of vision and incompetence in the economic field.”

In addition to strengthening the rule of law, Akufo-Addo’s vision for Ghana includes reforms in three key areas to transform the economy and set out a path to growth: pursuing economic diversification, unleashing the private sector from burdensome regulation and excessive taxation, and reining in the national debt.

As Ghanaians welcome and embrace this new presidency, Akufo-Addo should follow through with these reforms to enhance Ghana’s economic freedom and advance opportunities for all Ghanaians. (For more from the author of “Ghana Is Leading the Way for Democracy in Africa” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Shut Down America’s Refugee Programs Before They Turn Us Into Germany

/0 Comments/in , , /by

On the first day of the new year, Islamic terrorists claimed another 39 victims, including Americans, in an attack at a popular nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey. The Christmas truck attack in Berlin recalls the similar July attack in Nice, France. The suspect, Tunisian asylum seeker Anis Amri, was killed in a shootout with Italian police on December 23.

Amri had been denied asylum in Germany due to his terror risk, but was not deported because Tunisia would not accept him since he lacked a passport. Amri carried six different aliases from three nations and had been monitored by German authorities. He was not a “lone jihadist” but part of an ISIS cell, and traveled covertly, like some of the Paris killers, with the refugee flow from the Mediterranean.

On the same day as the Berlin attack, there was a knife attack at a Virginia Metro station by an African Muslim, Ali Ahmed Mohamound. A similar knife attack occurred in New York City the day before, with the suspect still at large.

All this followed on the heels of November’s Ohio State knife attack by Somali Muslim refugee Abdul Artan. These attacks typify the kinds recommended in ISIS literature, and ISIS claims credit for most of them. With Berlin, Brussels, Orlando, and so many other horrific attacks this year, San Bernardino and Paris almost seem like old news.

Although we view these events with horror and growing alarm, the outgoing Obama administration is literally importing terrorists through our nation’s refugee programs. Because private contractors are paid by the head to resettle refugees and other needy populations, the resettlement program has built-in incentives for uncontrolled growth. This harmonizes with the Left’s open borders agenda, which seeks to swell the rolls of new Democrat voters while weakening the influence of traditional (read conservative) America.

Big business shares this agenda in seeking cheap, subsidized labor. The resulting bipartisan alliance has long subsidized a resettlement industry that is expensive, secretive, duplicitous, and unconcerned about the Americans who pay for it with hard-earned tax dollars. The refugee resettlement program must be abolished in its current form before it puts us on the path toward today’s turbulent France and Germany.

The Real Risk of Increasing Terrorism

The most important risk the current refugee program creates is terrorism. Since 9/11 there have been 580 convictions for terrorism in the United States. At least 40 of these were refugees. Just this year, in addition to the knife attacks by Abdul Artan and Ali Mohamound, four other refugees have committed or attempted to commit acts of terrorism.

Since March 2014 there have been 111 ISIS-related arrests and 60 convictions. There have been nine indictments and six convictions of ISIS supporters in the metropolitan DC area alone. ISIS openly encourages “lone jihadi” attacks, and the State Department now admits ISIS is trying to penetrate the U.S. refugee flow. Some 250 U.S. Muslims from 19 states have either joined or attempted to join ISIS overseas. Many have since returned with little or no oversight.

Let’s be clear: these are not Mennonite terrorists. They are not Episcopalian suicide bombers. Virtually all 580 convictions since 9/11 were Muslim immigrants or American Muslim converts, and the Somali community consistently supplies such malefactors. Yet the Department of Homeland Security has provided tours of airport facilities to groups of Somalis, including explanations of airport inner workings, security protocols, and databases. DHS redacted some of this information as too sensitive to share with the public.

The Refugee Program Is Home to Major Fraud

Virginia knife attacker Ali Mohamound was carrying multiple identities when arrested. The Ohio State terrorist and his family lived in Pakistan for seven years before being resettled to the United States. Why were they not simply resettled in Pakistan? Afghani refugee Ahmad Rahami, the terrorist bomber of New York and New Jersey, originally entered the United States through the asylum program, but then traveled back to Afghanistan, where he apparently became radicalized. How can someone who is supposedly fleeing his home country for his life go back for a visit?

Virtually all U.S. Somalis originally arrived as refugees or asylum seekers or are their children. Many now take months-long trips back to Somalia, contradicting their purported reason for seeking asylum: fleeing Somalia for their lives. Minneapolis actually grants rent relief because Somalis complained about the cost of overdue rent upon their return. The home country visits so many “refugees” make undercut the program’s integrity.

The entire refugee resettlement program has systematic fraud, creating both national security risks and undue fiscal burdens. Refugee advocates claim the vetting process for Syrians is airtight, but U.S. security officials say exactly the opposite. An internal Immigrations, Customs, and Enforcement memo states, “[The] refugee program is particularly vulnerable to fraud due to loose evidentiary requirements where at times the testimony of an applicant alone is sufficient for approval.” The memo goes on to say that “the immigration system is a constant target for exploitation” by terrorists. An Immigration and Naturalization Services assistant commissioner said 95 percent of refugee and asylee applications are fraudulent.

The Obama administration has knowingly and routinely allowed illegal aliens falsely claiming asylum to remain in the United States. A September 2016 DHS Inspector General report found that 1,982 aliens from countries known for immigration fraud or terror-links who were scheduled for deportation were instead granted citizenship using false identities because fingerprint records were missing.

The United Nations selects almost all refugees, and the United States takes more refugees than all other resettlement nations combined. Yet many of the tens of thousands of unvettable Syrians who are accepted don’t meet the refugee definition.

Syrian Christians are facing genocide, and certainly do meet the definition, but represent less than 1 percent of those Syrians resettled so far. Syrian Muslims are more than 98 percent of the total. In the interest of diplomacy we are also resettling populations other countries refuse to take. Most recently, the Obama administration offered to accept 2,465 asylum seekers now being detained by Australia which that country refuses to accept because of their possible ties to terrorism. In response to congressional inquiries, the administration has declared information about this agreement classified.

Heavy Costs for Taxpayers Besides Terrorism Risks

Refugee resettlement is administered by three agencies: the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM), the Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), and the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). It has grown and metastasized over the years.

In fiscal year 2016, the program cost $2.4 billion, an increase of 205.4 percent since FY 2009. At the last minute Obama boosted ORR’s request to $3.9 billion for FY 2017 to handle the unprecedented flow of minors now being apprehended at the Southwest border. That’s 14,128 in the past two months alone and a 106 percent increase for the year.

Congress provided a pro-rata share of $500 million of this request in the short-term continuing resolution passed on December 9. It cannot be expended until the new Health and Human Services secretary has been installed. He can withhold some or all of those funds, if he chooses.

Since FY 2009, approximately 1 million migrants have arrived through these programs. Program costs average about $10,000 per head in the first year, and refugee welfare use is off the charts, even after five years (see table below). In fact, refugees resettled in the 1980s still receive welfare at rates well in excess of Americans and other immigrants.

The Center for Immigration Studies has estimated the annual cost of resettling Muslim refugees during the first five years at $12,874 per head. Muslim refugees use welfare at higher rates than average. I have estimated a somewhat lower average of $11,574 per head for the entire group. Cumulatively for the years 2009 through 2015, this cohort alone has cost U.S. taxpayers a staggering $48 billion. Since 1980, 3 million have been resettled.

Migrants Create a Heavy Toll on Communities

State and local costs are significant. When the Refugee Act was first passed, the federal government promised to cover 36 months of states’ share of food stamps, Medicaid, Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA), and Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) for refugees—a huge subsidy. Today it covers no state costs. Refugees rely heavily on local assistance, and school budgets, costs for translation, and other services have exploded. Following is a sampling of problems in many U.S. communities:

Amarillo, TX: 911 calls taken in 36 languages

Amarillo, TX: English tutoring $1,300/student/month, while feds provide $100/student/year

Buffalo, NY: 42 languages spoken in high school

Lynn, MA: 49 languages spoken, some in unknown dialects

Lynn, MA: 200 percent increase in vaccinations, straining public health budgets; foreign student K-12 admissions doubled

Manchester, NH: 82 languages spoken in high school, among lowest school ratings in NH

Minneapolis, MN: Somalis are a heavy ISIS recruitment target

Minnesota: more than one-half of the Somali population is in poverty

Rochester, NY: refugees and inner-city minorities clash

Nationwide: 20 to 49 percent of refugees test positive for latent tuberculosis (TB)

Nebraska: 82 percent of active TB cases are among foreign-born

Major Conflicts of Interest Among Refugee Resettlers

Nine private contractors, called “Voluntary Agencies” or VOLAGs, resettle refugees with the assistance of 320 “affiliates.” VOLAGs are supposed to consult communities before resettling refugees, but almost never do. They secretly resettle refugees and leave communities to deal with the resulting problems. They regularly withhold information from community leaders and concerned citizens and ignore local complaints.

Refugee resettlement has big effects for small communities throughout the United States, which is a major reason for growing resistance to the program. In one example, a federal agent contacted me in November to describe numerous problems in northern Michigan. He said citizens and public officials from Traverse City and elsewhere expressed concerns over the indiscriminate “dumping” of refugees and illegal aliens in small towns, including the Upper Peninsula, under cover of darkness, without any prior coordination with appropriate public officials (i.e. mayors, town councils, etc.).

Refugees are often employed in the resettlement industry, giving refugees a stake its growth. Many VOLAG leaders who receive federal resettlement grants are former directors of the agencies that administer those grants, and vice versa. Like a revolving door, they cycle in and out of government. For example, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration Assistant Secretary Ann Richard is a former vice president for one of the nine VOLAGs. She helped found the International Crisis Group, a leftist organization funded by George Soros.

VOLAGs receive a total of about $1 billion per year from taxpayers and are paid by the head, receiving anywhere from $2,025 to more than $5,000 per refugee. The Government Accountability Office has noted that this creates a strong incentive for VOLAGs to constantly resettle more refugees, regardless of whether it is in the interest of the refugee or the target community.

David M. Robinson, who would later lead PRM, said of the refugee industry: “The solution its members offer to every refugee crisis is simplistic and the same: increase the number of admissions to the United States without regard to budgets or competing foreign policy considerations. On the other hand, it is politically well connected, includes major party donors at the local and national levels, and owns the moral high ground on an extremely emotional issue.”

VOLAGs have not faced any kind of meaningful oversight since the program was established in 1980. None have ever faced a public financial audit despite many calls to do so. The program is biased toward continual growth, and security concerns must be addressed.

Prioritizing Refugees Above American Citizens

The Refugee Act of 1980 dictates benefits that refugees must receive. They go to the front of the line for welfare and public housing, jumping ahead of all Americans, including veterans and the disabled. VOLAGs provide:

Housing

Essential furnishings

Food, food allowance

Seasonal clothing

Pocket money

Assistance in applying for public benefits, Social Security cards, language translation, employment services, non-employment services, Medicaid

Assistance with health screenings and medical care

Assistance with registering children in school

Transportation to job interviews and job training

Home visits

Additionally, ORR and other agencies provide numerous special grants available only to refugees. This is supposedly to enable refugees to rapidly become economically self-sufficient. However, ORR’s definition of “economic self-sufficiency” allows refugees to continue to receive every kind of welfare except cash assistance from food stamps or RCA. Refugees thus have a strong incentive to seek U.S. resettlement to obtain benefits.

Maine Gov. Paul LePage told me that elderly autistic residents of Portland, Maine are swelling the rolls of the homeless as their primary caretakers, usually their parents, die, or become unable to care for them, because public housing is taken by refugees.

What Americans and Our Leaders Should Do

The resettlement program is dangerous, expensive, and unfair to Americans. Its structure encourages endless growth, systemic corruption, cronyism, secrecy, and duplicity. The refugee program must be put on hold. Members of Congress have called for a moratorium, and such legislation is circulating. H.R. 3314, the Resettlement Accountability National Security Act, has 86 co-sponsors.

But legislation isn’t needed. On his first day in office, Trump can pause the entire program by simply resetting the annual refugee targets to whatever number has already been reached this fiscal year. The 1980 Refugee Act gives him authority to do this, and subsequent court decisions have declared Congress’s refugee resettlement oversight authority as advisory only.

Trump has stated his desire to halt resettlement from nations of terrorism concern. It would be wiser to pause the entire program.

It costs 12 times as much to resettle refugees as to assist them in place. Almost all refugeeswould prefer to return home than be resettled to a third country. President-Elect Trump’s idea to create “safe zones” in or near countries of conflict is a much more compassionate and cost-effective method of dealing with the refugee crisis. Trump’s State Department should encourage the Gulf States to participate in resettlement, since they currently offer little help.

The VOLAG system needs to be abolished. Asylum and other alternative forms of resettlement should operate case-by-case. Resettlement should be returned to the private act of charity it was before 1980. That structure would be naturally self-limiting, and those financing resettlement would have a much stronger incentive to see that their charitable dollars were not wasted on frauds or potential terrorists. Refugees should be required to become truly economically self-sufficient.

With such restrictions, other nations would have to confront and resolve conflicts they now offload onto America. The U.S. government role should be limited to security: helping create safe zones, identifying other countries that might help more, designating those populations suitable for resettlement, setting numerical limits, and vetting all refugees, asylum seekers, and others seeking U.S. entry. With new leadership, policies and management, Trump’s administration can reinvent the resettlement program to serve America’s interests again. (For more from the author of “Shut Down America’s Refugee Programs Before They Turn Us Into Germany” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.