Mainstream Media Prints Fake News About Man Who Wrongly Claimed His Mom Died Due to Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

The mainstream media claims to be very concerned about fake news, but continues to report it. When a story comes out that makes the right — especially President Trump — look bad, reporters are so excited to break the news that they get sloppy about verifying its accuracy. It seems to be happening more and more lately, perhaps because Trump is now president.

A man claimed a few days ago that his mother died in Iraq after Trump banned refugees from entering the U.S. Mike Hager told a Fox News affiliate in Detroit that he had flown to Iraq to bring her back to the U.S. for medical treatment.

The Media Ran With It

“I really believe this in my heart: if they would have let us in, my mom — she would have made it and she would have been sitting right here next to me,” he said. “She’s gone because of him.”

The mainstream media ran with the story and the sad statement. Sources running it included CNN, CBS, Buzzfeed and Yahoo.

However, Imam Husham Al-Husainy, of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center in Dearborn, told the news station that wasn’t true. He said Hager’s mother actually died five days before the travel ban. Some of the media outlets corrected their previous articles, but others, like “award-winning reporter” Jim Smith for CBS Boston, didn’t bother.

Business as Usual

This comes just days after the media fell for another anti-Trump fake news story. Zeke Miller, a reporter with Time magazine, tweeted on January 20 that Trump had removed a bust of Martin Luther King, Jr., from the White House. His tweet spread like wildfire, as mainstream media outlets breathlessly ran with the story.

Miller didn’t even check with anyone at the White House about it. He simply decided since he couldn’t see the bust, it must have been removed. In reality, the statue had never been moved — he couldn’t see it from where he was standing in the room.

He eventually issued a retraction, but it wasn’t covered nearly as much as the initial fake story. He doesn’t appear to have been disciplined over the incident.

It’s just business as usual for those in the mainstream media. White House press secretary Sean Spicer tweeted a reminder to the press to check facts before they tweet. But without any consequences, there is little incentive for the press to fact check awful stories about Trump.

(For more from the author of “Mainstream Media Prints Fake News About Man Who Wrongly Claimed His Mom Died Due to Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ryan: Presidents Often Prioritize Refugee Claims–Obama ‘Put a Preference in for Sexual Orientation’

/0 Comments/in , /by

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Thursday that there’s nothing wrong with President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration including a preference for religious minorities facing persecution, because it’s a common practice for presidents to include preferences in refugee populations and that former President Barack Obama did the same thing for sexual orientation.

“Presidents always and often put preferences in refugee populations,” Ryan said. “I think President Obama had one for sexual orientation. They didn’t call that a sexual orientation test. He put a preference in for sexual orientation.

“Religious minorities who are being persecuted, there’s nothing wrong with preferring religious minorities from persecution. Yazidis are being persecuted. Sunnis in Shia countries are being persecuted. Christians are being persecuted, so there’s nothing wrong with saying we’re going to take into account minority religious persecution with our refugee situation,” he said.

Trump’s executive orders states: “The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.”

In 2015, then President Obama issued a presidential memorandum titled Presidential Memorandum — International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons. (Read more from “Ryan: Presidents Often Prioritize Refugee Claims–Obama ‘Put a Preference in for Sexual Orientation'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Warmongering Iran Threatens to Unleash ‘Martyrdom’ Operations on America

/0 Comments/in , /by

An influential Iranian leader has threatened to unleash thousands of “martyrdom” operations by loyal allies of the Tehran regime already inside the United States. The move comes as President Donald Trump has put Iran “on notice” for its illegal ballistic missile tests and escalating anti-American activities.

Hassan Abbasi, an Iranian political theorist who has been dubbed “the [Henry] Kissinger of Islam,” made the remarks Thursday, claiming that Iran doesn’t need a nuclear bomb because of such loyalists ready for suicide operations, according to author, and Gatestone Institute chairman, Amir Taheri.

Abbasi is a high-ranking officer in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which is tasked with exporting Iran’s Caliphatist revolutionary ideology worldwide. He is also the head of a premier Iranian think tank affiliated with the IRGC called the Center for Borderless Security Doctrinal Analysis.

Additionally, National Review has described Hassan Abbasi as a “theoretician” for Iranian dictator and Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In the past, he has designated America as part of an alliance of “sworn enemies of God and Muslims.”

Iran’s escalating rhetoric follows the White House administration change — and its corresponding change in tone on Iran.

Pres. Trump warned the Tehran regime Thursday morning: “Iran has been formally PUT ON NOTICE for firing a ballistic missile. Should have been thankful for the terrible deal the U.S. made with them!”

He added in another Tweet: “Iran was on its last legs and ready to collapse until the U.S. came along and gave it a life-line in the form of the Iran Deal: $150 billion.”

Additionally, National Security Advisor Michael Flynn put Iran “on notice” on Wednesday, condemning the regime’s ballistic missile test and sponsorship of terrorism.

Flynn said in a statement:

“Recent Iranian actions, including a provocative ballistic missile launch and an attack against a Saudi naval vessel conducted by Iran-supported Houthi militants, underscore what should have been clear to the international community all along about Iran’s destabilizing behavior across the Middle East.”

The Iran-backed Houthis committed a deadly strike on a Saudi warship in the Red Sea earlier this week, utilizing “suicide boats” to hit their target. The Iran-backed militants have been accused of targeting U.S. vessels as well.

“As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice,” Flynn concluded his statement.

Iran has described its offensive ballistic missile program as an “inalienable and absolute” right of the country, and claims its tests do not violate sanctions or the nuclear deal signed with the Obama administration and world powers. (For more from the author of “Warmongering Iran Threatens to Unleash ‘Martyrdom’ Operations on America” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

From Campaign Finance to Regulations: Why Gorsuch Was the Perfect Pick for Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

When President Donald Trump introduced his pick for the U.S. Supreme Court at the White House Tuesday night, he told the American people that he had kept his campaign promise “to select someone who respects our laws … and who loves our Constitution and someone who will interpret them as written.”

With the nomination of Tenth Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch, Trump has indeed kept his word. Gorsuch’s record as a lawyer, judge, and legal intellectual demonstrates that he is indeed a constitutional textualist who believes, as he said in a 2016 speech on the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia at Case Western, that judges must:

apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be – not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best.

Gorsuch confirmed that this is his view of the proper role of a judge when he spoke to the invited crowd of administration supporters at the White House, and said something that many liberals — including some who sit on our federal courts — disagree with:

in our legal order it is for Congress and not the courts to write new laws. It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people’s representatives. A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.

Most importantly, Gorsuch has demonstrated that same approach in numerous opinions upholding basic rights in the Bill of Rights. In Riddle v. Hickenlooper, for example, he concurred in an opinion that tossed out a law setting different campaign contribution limits for major and minor party candidates. As he said, no one can dispute:

that the act of contributing to political campaigns implicates a ‘basic constitutional freedom,’ one lying ‘at the foundation of a free society’ and enjoying a significant relationship to the right to speak and associate — both expressly protected First Amendment activities.

This is very important because the Supreme Court has had a series of cases in recent years involving restrictions on campaign financing and speech that the liberal justices on the Court have refused to recognize as violating the First Amendment right to freely associate and engage in political activity. Justice Scalia was the needed fifth vote in these cases, such as Citizens United v. FEC, so it is vital that the new justice be someone like Gorsuch who has shown a firm commitment to upholding the First Amendment in the area of political speech and political activity.

In cases ranging from Hobby Lobby v. Burwell to Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell to Summum v. Pleasant Grove City, Gorsuch either joined majority opinions or filed dissents upholding the religious freedom rights of citizens under the First Amendment or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, particularly their right to be protected from undue burdens imposed by the government that violate their religious beliefs. And that includes dissents criticizing the Supreme Court in American Atheists Inc. v. Davenport and Green v. Haskel County Board of Commissioners for creating a test that is far too likely to find supposedly impermissible endorsements of religion by the government when none was intended, resulting in religious adherents being prohibited from participating in public life.

Given the threat imposed to our liberty, our freedom, and our financial wellbeing by overregulation and unaccountable federal bureaucracies, the views that Gorsuch has expressed towards the administrative state are also needed on the Supreme Court. Last year in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, he authored a concurring opinion in which he criticized the validity of the Supreme Court’s holding in Chevron v. NRDC.

That decision established a rule giving broad deference to decisions made by federal bureaucrats, rather than judges, when it comes to interpreting ambiguous laws. According to Gorsuch, this rule allows “executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design.”

Gorsuch summarily encapsulated the problems with the type of activist judges who think of themselves as super legislators in his speech at Case Western. As Gorsuch said, consider what happens when we allow a judge to act as a legislator:

Unconstrained by the bicameralism and presentment hurdles of Article I, the judge would need only his own vote, or those of just a few colleagues, to revise the law willy-nilly in accordance with his preferences and the task of legislating would become a relatively simply thing. Notice, too, how hard it would be to revise this so-easily-made judicial legislation to account for changes in the world or to fix mistakes. Unable to throw judges out of office in regular elections, you’d have to wait for them to die before you’d have any chance of change. And even then you’d find change difficult, for courts cannot so easily undo their errors given the weight they afford precedent. Notice finally how little voice the people would be left in a government where life-appointed judges are free to legislate alongside elected representatives. The very idea of self-government would seem to wither to the point of pointlessness.

That is exactly the kind of attitude against unrestrained judges who rewrite the law to suit their ideology that we need in a Supreme Court justice. Hopefully with the help of Justice Gorsuch, President Donald Trump and the new Congress will finally start to rein in the federal government and the administrative state and start to corral it back within the limits on its power that the Founders set out in the Constitution. (For more from the author of “From Campaign Finance to Regulations: Why Gorsuch Was the Perfect Pick for Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Love out of Tragedy: Boston Bombing Survivor Gets Engaged to Hero Firefighter

/0 Comments/in , /by

Roseann Sdoia was one of hundreds injured in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing that killed three. Mike Materia was the firefighter who rushed to her aid, stayed by her side while she was transported to the hospital, and checked on her throughout her recovery after her right leg was amputated.

Now, he’s her fiancé.

The two went on their first date two months after the bombing, Fox 5 News reported. Materia proposed in December of last year.

“I asked him if I was going to die,” Sdoia told the New York Post, recalling the day they met. “And he told me that I was going to be OK, that I only had a flesh wound.”

Materia “was so kind and caring,” she said.

On Wednesday the couple participated in the Empire State Building Run-Up, the New York Times reported. The event benefited the Challenged Athletes Foundation. Sdoia, a beneficiary of Challenged Athletes Foundation herself, climbed all 1,576 steps with her prosthetic leg. Materia completed the challenge in full firefighter gear.

Sdoia and Materia are also scheduled in March to release Perfect Strangers, a book about four people whose lives were impacted by the bombing. (For more from the author of “Love out of Tragedy: Boston Bombing Survivor Gets Engaged to Hero Firefighter” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Big Lesson From the Boy Scouts Demise: Appeasement Doesn’t Work

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Boy Scouts of America have capitulated to liberal culture. Matt Walsh called them “spineless cowards” and bid them goodbye:

Goodbye, Boy Scouts. You fools. You invertebrates. You caved once again and will now allow “transgender boys” — also known as girls — to enter your ranks. I guess you forgot that the girls already have their own branch of the Scouts. It’s called the Girl Scouts. You know, the one with the cookies. Will the Boy Scouts start selling cookies now, too? That would be one upside to all of this, at least.

Walsh is right, that the BSA is no longer the organization it was founded to be, and in fact is redundant given that girls who want to act and live as boys can now join. But I would stop short of calling them fools. They’re just appeasers who learned an old lesson: Appeasement doesn’t work.

A History Lesson on Failed Attempts at Appeasement

The BSA fell victim to appeasing antagonists and mistaking those antagonists as advocates for limited change. Those antagonists painted themselves as persecuted victims who share Scout values, but in fact they were traitors to those values. History shows over and over again that appeasing traitors always leads to defeat.

Behold the sad story of Edvard Beneš, President of Czechoslovakia from 1935-1938. He was a national socialist — a believer in a unity of Czechs and Slovak ethnic groups. He was a respected diplomat of great skill. But history made him a great fool. He faced a group of separatists he believed shared his aims and suffered genuine persecution, but the persecution was hyped and staged — led by traitor Konrad Henlein.

Henlein was the head of a political party seeking autonomy for Sudeten Germans. In fact Henlein was a Nazi agent taking his orders from Berlin. Beneš offered Henlein everything he asked for, but Henlein’s orders were to refuse all offers, as Hitler wanted to annex Czechoslovakia. British PM Neville Chamberlain’s visit to Munich capped the appeasement, but didn’t stop the ever-growing demands.

Beneš was forced from office in October 1938, after Henlein fled to Berlin. The Germans replaced Beneš with a Nazi puppet, and the Wehrmacht rolled into Prague unopposed.

The Boy Scouts Ignored Their Most Important Weapon: Biblical Truth

Now that the Boy Scouts have capitulated, they will be annexed by liberal culture. Some churches, which have already been annexed, will continue to support the organization. The Cub Scout “transgender crisis” in New Jersey was nothing more than the ever-growing demands of a culture that refuses to be appeased, but wants to occupy and annex everything.

By the time that crisis came along, the ending was already written. When, in 2013, the BSA abandoned a Supreme Court ruling that gave them the right to exclude gay Scouts and leaders from their organization, they surrendered. Unlike Czechoslovakia, which lacked the weapons to stop Germany, the Boy Scouts had a super weapon, and they gave it up.

Why? Because they were scared of losing funding. They were scared of losing relevance, and they were scared of shrinking, like the culture they previously supported. As church attendance and Biblical adherence declined, the Scouts declined with it. They believed that they lacked the weapons to fight the culture, when in fact they had two unassailable weapons: Biblical moral truth, and a Supreme Court decision in their favor.

Once the BSA abandoned their strong defense, the end was inevitable. The culture would not be appeased. Gay Scouts turned into gay leaders. Then that turned into a “transgender crisis.”

Time to Say Goodbye

Walsh is right that soon we’ll see liberal indoctrination in the Boy Scouts. Christian values and absolute morals will be tossed and replaced with relativism and “many truths.” The definitions of family, gender, and manhood will become a muddled mess of validation versus truth. The Bible will be held in contempt or twisted to liberal ends.

What will they teach boys to prepare them to be men? Camping, knot tying and woodsman skills were never the point of what the Scouts taught. They taught values. The activities served to reinforce those values and cement them into boys’ psyches. Positive peer pressure and group bonding is a powerful teaching tool. The Scouts may keep doing the same activities, but the lessons will be completely different.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts merged at some point, given that there’s no longer a difference. To the Scouts’ new masters, teaching “gender roles” is prudish and oppressive.

Christians must now avoid and withdraw from the Boy Scouts. The organization, through appeasement, has been thoroughly annexed and handed over to the God-mocking liberal culture of the day. Better to choose Trail Life USA, Royal Rangers, or some other Christ-centered mentoring program that teaches boys to be Godly men.

The lesson cannot be more clearly delivered. Appeasement doesn’t work. Persecution is part of the package for Christians. We must never abandon the truth. (For more from the author of “The Big Lesson From the Boy Scouts Demise: Appeasement Doesn’t Work” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Democrats Have Run out of Ideas — Even Bad Ones

/0 Comments/in , /by

Just days into the Trump administration, the left’s narrative is clear. First, it was that Trump is an “illegitimate” president because he didn’t win the popular vote, claims about “voter fraud” notwithstanding.

Then the left tried name-calling. Unfit. Immoral. Crude. High-handed. Fascist. His supporters stuck with him when similar tactics were tried during the campaign.

Now the narrative has gone “racist,” that all-purpose word the left seems ready to attach to anyone for any reason. Egged on by their media allies, Democrats called the temporary halt on immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries “racist” and referred to it as a travel “ban.” It was nothing of the kind and, according to a recent USA Today report, the Department of Homeland Security, as of Sunday night, said “all 109 travelers who were detained for additional screening under Trump’s order had their cases resolved.” DHS granted waivers to 392 legal permanent residents “after they underwent additional screening and allowed to enter the country.”

This action shouldn’t come as a surprise. It’s what Trump promised during the campaign.

It should also be noted, because the major media doesn’t, that the past six presidents have limited access or banned outright immigrants from certain parts of the world deemed dangerous, as they are allowed to do by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. These include former President Obama, who couldn’t help himself and spoke out against the temporary delay. Trump’s action, as noted by Matt Vespa for townhall.com, “is based on a bill that Obama signed into law in December 2015.” At that time Obama restricted waivers from the same seven majority-Muslim countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — that President Trump did. (Read more from “Democrats Have Run out of Ideas — Even Bad Ones” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Obamacare Report Shows Rising Costs and Fewer Options for 2017

/0 Comments/in , /by

A new report shows that Obamacare enrollees could pay more money and end up with fewer options in 2017.

The study from Avalere Health, a health care consulting firm, showed rising premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs for many customers, a shrinking amount of insurance options in the exchange market, and a drastically lower number of Obamacare enrollees than projected.

Premiums for the silver-level plan, Obamacare’s most popular option, increased by an average of 12 percent in 2017. Specifically, the Avalere report showed that 71 percent of Obamacare enrollees covered under the silver plan have seen their average costs rise from $496 per month last year to $554 per month this year. The average cost for the first and second cheapest silver-level plans have also gone up by 25 percent.

Even for Obamacare’s bronze-level plan—the cheapest, lowest quality option—the monthly, average premiums rose from $408 in 2016 to $475 this year.

“Part of the reason why these premiums are rising is because there are fewer people enrolled than I expected, and the people who are enrolled are sicker than expected,” said Chris Sloan, a senior manager at Avalere, in a phone interview with The Daily Signal.

However, according to Sloan, with government subsidies and tax credits, lower-income earners enrolled in Obamacare may not be affected by the rising costs of these cheaper plans.

“While many consumers will experience significant premium increases this year, most will receive subsidies to help offset the costs of the increases and make premiums more affordable,” Sloan said in a statement.

Obamacare premiums are going up, but due to government financial assistance, real costs for many enrollees are remaining relatively the same. These costs will fall on taxpayers, according to a health care expert.

“If subsidies are going up through premium tax credits and cautionary reduction subsidies, the federal taxpayer ends up paying for that increase, so the burden of that is on all us federal taxpayers,” said Alyene Senger, a health care policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation.

Senger added, “When supporters of the [Affordable Care Act] say, ‘Well, these figures don’t really matter, because we’re subsidizing [Obamacare enrollees] so they aren’t feeling the brunt of their premium increases because the federal taxpayer is picking up the tab,’ that doesn’t apply to all the people who are purchasing in the individual market that get no subsidy.”

However, even with many Obamacare enrollees being assisted by subsidies or tax credits, they may still find themselves paying more out of pocket for their health care, as deductibles for services and drugs jumped by about 20 percent for silver-level plans in 2017. The number of silver-level plans charging coinsurance—an out-of-pocket payment charged after a consumer’s deductible is paid—for specialty drugs went up by 10 percent.

Issuer participation is also a problem highlighted by the Avalere report, as approximately 1 in 3 regions in America now only have one health insurance issuer. In 2016, just 4 percent of the country was limited to one issuer in their region. After several national and regional insurers exited the exchange markets, 36 percent of the country is now stuck with one issuer in their region.

“What this means is that people who have purchased insurance for 2017 have a lot less choice, so if there’s only one issuer offering health plans in your area and their network doesn’t include your doctor, then that’s it, you don’t really have another option,” Sloan told The Daily Signal.

“People in this market just won’t have as much choice as they had in 2016, or 2015, or 2014,” Sloan said.

This Avalere report, titled “2017 Health Insurance Exchange Snapshot,” was published on Jan 18. (For more from the author of “New Obamacare Report Shows Rising Costs and Fewer Options for 2017” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Democrats Send Mixed Signals on Senate Vote for Neil Gorsuch

/0 Comments/in , /by

Several Democrat senators are sending mixed signals as to whether they will support an up-or-down vote on President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court. The uncertainty could complicate or delay the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch.

With liberal activists calling on Democrats to block Gorsuch’s confirmation, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is demanding a 60-vote threshold. Republicans have 52 seats, meaning they would need to secure the support of eight Democrats to end a filibuster and move to a confirmation vote.

So far, at least eight Democrats have said they support a “vote” on Gorsuch, although their statements aren’t exactly clear on what they mean.

“Various Democrats are trying to use weasely language about a supposed 60-vote standard for Supreme Court nominees in order to try to sound tough to some of their constituents,” said Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “At the same time, in order to try to appear reasonable to other constituents, they state their support for a floor vote on the Gorsuch nomination.”

Whelan said Democrats “can’t have it both ways.”

There are some like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia who have clearly ruled out a Democrat-led filibuster of Gorsuch, whom Trump picked Tuesday to fill the late Antonin Scalia’s seat.

“The Senate should hold committee hearings,” Manchin said in statement. “Senators should meet with him, we should debate his qualifications on the Senate floor and cast whatever vote we believe he deserves.”

Manchin, who represents a state that Trump won by 42 percentage points, added, “I urge my colleagues to put partisan politics aside and allow the vetting process to proceed.”

Manchin met with Gorsuch on Thursday, but did not say if he would vote for his confirmation.

Then there are others like Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri. She initially signaled support for a hearing and vote for Gorsuch, but backtracked after facing criticism.

On Tuesday, before Trump made his announcement, McCaskill tweeted, “We should have a full confirmation hearing process and a vote.”

About an hour later, however, McCaskill added a caveat: it would need to be at a 60-vote threshold.

Schumer said Wednesday that 60 votes should be the “standard” for a Supreme Court nominee.

“Sixty votes is a bar that was met by each of President [Barack] Obama’s nominees,” he said. “At the time, there was no need for a cloture vote, because we knew that each of them would garner over 60 votes.”

The Washington Post’s fact-checker called out Schumer for his 60-vote “standard” on Supreme Court nominees. While 60 votes would be needed to overcome a filibuster, a simple majority is required for confirmation.

Obama’s two nominees, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, were confirmed with more than 60 votes. But other Supreme Court nominees have been confirmed with less than 60 votes.

Justice Samuel Alito was confirmed by a vote of 58 to 42 in 2006, and Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed with a vote of 52 to 48 in 1991.

This week, Democrats sent mixed signals about what an up-or-down vote would mean for Gorsuch. In addition to Manchin and McCaskill, six others weighed in with similar statements.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.: “I will support having a hearing and a vote because I think the president’s nominee deserves that consideration.”
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del.: “I will push for a hearing and I will push for a vote.”
Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind.: “As I have said part of our job as senators includes considering, debating, and voting on judicial nominations, including to the Supreme Court.”
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.: “I will meet with Judge Gorsuch and support a hearing and vote for him.”
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., asked if Gorsuch should get “a straight up-or-down vote,” told Politico: “Absolutely.”
Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.: “Have a hearing and vote.”

What remains unclear is the type of vote these senators have in mind: a cloture vote of 60 or confirmation vote of 51. In the case of McCaskill and Durbin, their statements were enough to rattle liberal activists and prompt responses.

A day after his original statement, Durbin clarified that Gorsuch would need to reach a 60-vote threshold.

Meanwhile, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee attacked Coons for lacking “backbone.” The group’s email to supporters said, “After everything Trump has done since taking office, this is NOT what Democratic backbone needs to look like.”

“Democrats are having an internal debate, and their senators are between a rock and a hard place, causing some senators to swing back and forth,” said Ken Klukowski, senior counsel and director of strategic affairs for First Liberty Institute.

“Some in Democratic ranks argue that they should keep Scalia’s seat open for a full four years,” Klukowski added. “They cannot sustain such opposition for four years. As President Obama said, elections have consequences. The American people voted for this outcome.”

Rachel Bovard, director of policy services at The Heritage Foundation, said Democrats have a losing argument.

“The Democratic Party appears to be split on this issue,” Bovard told The Daily Signal. “However, it’s the height of hypocrisy for the Democrats to demand a 60-vote threshold on Gorsuch after they destroyed the 60-vote threshold for every other judge by going nuclear in 2013.”

In 2013, when Democrats controlled the Senate, they changed the rules to eliminate the filibuster for lower court nominees and executive branch nominees. Trump has advised Senate Republicans to “go nuclear” and make the same standar apply to Supreme Court nominees.

Republicans, however, could also use what is known as the two-speech rule to run out the clock on a Democrat-led filibuster, preserving the 60-vote threshold while also eventually confirming Gorsuch.

Klukowski said that dissension in the Democrat ranks is not sustainable. He expects Gorsuch to win confirmation and be seated on the Supreme Court.

“President Trump made the Supreme Court central to his campaign, including a list with Gorsuch’s name on it,” Klukowski said. “In a sense, the election was Merrick Garland vs. Neil Gorsuch. President Trump won, so Judge Gorsuch won. Senate Democrats need to accept the verdict of the American people, and confirm this well-qualified nominee.” (For more from the author of “Democrats Send Mixed Signals on Senate Vote for Neil Gorsuch” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Will GOP Keep Its Promise to Defund Planned Parenthood?

/0 Comments/in , /by

A number of promises were made to pro-life voters in 2016, not the least of which was that if given control of Congress, Republicans would defund the country’s largest abortion provided, Planned Parenthood.

But the only way for the GOP to keep that pledge is by passing the reconciliation bill to repeal Obamacare. The longer Republican leaders delay that effort, the less likely either defunding Planned Parenthood or fully repealing Obamacare will actually happen.

We spoke with pro-life activists participating in the recent 44th annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., who said they expect the GOP to keep its campaign promises.

(For more from the author of “Will GOP Keep Its Promise to Defund Planned Parenthood?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.