Trump’s Immigration Actions Reverse Obama’s Open Borders Policy

/0 Comments/in , /by

Moving swiftly to fulfill his campaign promise to get the nation’s illegal immigration problem under control, President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on Jan. 25 that constitute an almost complete reversal of the Obama administration’s nonenforcement and open borders policy.

From improving the physical barrier at our southern border to finally moving against sanctuary cities, these two executive orders put into effect a comprehensive program designed to secure our borders, implement interior enforcement, and reintegrate the assistance of state and local governments into federal efforts to enforce our immigration laws.

It has been a long time coming, but it seems to be finally happening: The federal government is actually enforcing our immigration laws.

As the first order, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” correctly sets out in its preamble, “border security is critically important to the national security of the United States” and “aliens who illegally enter… without inspection or admission present a significant threat to national security and public safety.”

The president orders the Department of Homeland Security to immediately take the following steps:

Plan, design, and construct a physical wall, using appropriate materials and technology to most effectively achieve complete operational control of the southern border.

End the “catch and release” policy of the Obama administration, which Border Patrol agents sarcastically referred to as “catch and run” that flooded the country with illegal aliens, as well as dramatically increase the capacity of detention facilities to handle this change and the number of immigration judges needed to handle alien cases.

Return illegal aliens “to the territory from which they came pending a formal removal proceeding,” expedite determinations of apprehended aliens’ claims of eligibility to remain in the U.S., and make federal prosecutions of immigration offenses “with a nexus to the southern border” a priority.

Hire an additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents.

Bring state and local law enforcement agencies back into immigration enforcement to get their assistance in the “investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens,” including through the 287(g) program, something the Obama administration did everything it could to end.

Stop the “abuse of parole and asylum provisions currently used to prevent the lawful removal of removable aliens” by doing what the Obama administration refused to do: Apply the plain language of the provisions in immigration law that set out strict standards for asylum and parole.

Authorize immigration agents and even state officials who are helping federal authorities to enter all federal lands in pursuit of illegal aliens—again something that the Obama Interior Department refused to allow in areas where national parks and other lands were along our borders.

The second, complementary order, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” aims at enhancing interior enforcement of our immigration laws, particularly for “aliens who engage in criminal conduct in the United States.”

This order outlines that executive branch officials are directed to:

Put a priority on removing aliens who have committed criminal offenses; that includes not just violent criminals, but also aliens who engage in fraud in connection with the government or public benefits.

Hire an additional 10,000 immigration officers.

Enter into agreements with as many state and local governments as possible to aid the federal government in enforcing federal immigration laws.

Cut off funding from the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department to sanctuary cities, as well as take appropriate action in court against any such sanctuary cities whose policies violate federal immigration law.

Review all previous immigration actions and policies to rescind or revise any that are inconsistent with federal immigration law or this executive order.

Implement a comprehensive program to prosecute illegal aliens for criminal violations of the law.

Implement sanctions against all “recalcitrant” countries that refuse to take back their nationals who are deported from the U.S.

Establish an office within the Department of Homeland Security to help the victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens.

There is no question that all of these actions, taken together, will be a major step in getting our illegal alien population under control, securing our border, and deterring and reducing the huge influx of illegal aliens into the U.S. that was spurred by the Obama administration’s lax policies.

It would seem that the political will to enforce our immigration laws and take a tough line on the illegal aliens that have been flooding into the country for many years has finally appeared in Washington in the form of Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States.

It is about time. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Immigration Actions Reverse Obama’s Open Borders Policy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Abortion Survivor Tells Her Story in New Book

/0 Comments/in , /by

You Carried Me: A Daughter’s Memoir is an extraordinary tale of survival and transformation. At 14, Melissa (Cross) Ohden discovered that when she first left the womb people were disappointed to see her alive. Her cries were evidence that the late term saline abortion — where a doctor poisons the amniotic fluid in order to chemically burn the child inside and out — had failed.

Melissa first dealt with this shocking past by turning to “the unholy trinity” of bulimia, alcohol and sex. Today, though, her strength comes from faith in the true Trinity and she is a wife and mother who has made hers a public face for the preborn.

In the book, Ohden chronicles the search for her roots, a journey which brought her eye to eye with the people of her past, people who like her were wounded by the reality of abortion.

Search and Discovery

What her adoptive parents had long kept hidden came to light when Melissa’s older sister faced a crisis pregnancy of her own. In an effort to save their grandchild, they told their troubled daughter about her sister’s circumstances. That decision to embrace the truth helped to save the life of Ohden’s preborn nephew and set Ohden on a path that would help to save many more.

Nevertheless, it first prompted a deep struggle as the teen went from believing that her biological family had made a loving decision to realizing, instead, that she carried the genes of those who wished her dead. Yet, when Ohden found her birthmother years later, she found another victim — a teenager pressed into an abortion that she never wanted and long unaware that her baby had survived.

This almost unbelievable drama is told with raw honesty and detailed documentation. The story twists but ultimately turns in the direction of grace and reconciliation. Now, Ohden heads up the Abortion Survivors Network through which she has connected with over 200 people who can tell a similar tale. These survivors stand as signposts to the always present humanity of the preborn.

Going Public

The decision to go public with her story was not an easy one, though. Surprisingly, the catalyst was a trip to an abortion clinic — as a customer.

“You should be here, not there.” Melissa Ohden heard those words from a pro-life sidewalk counselor at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Ignorant of the other services provided at this heavily fortified compound, she had come as a married woman to refill her birth control prescription, not to get an abortion. But she had just surprised even herself by telling the man with the rosary in his hand that she was an abortion survivor, and then Ohden’s heart told her that, yes, she should be with them.

That was her last visit to a Planned Parenthood clinic. Since then, she has shared her story with thousands and on January 27th, she will appear before tens of thousands more on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. at the March for Life.

Ohden’s is a song that should be heard by more than just the pro-life choir. Indeed, in many ways, she could have blended easily into the crowd at the recent Women’s March on Washington. Ohden put a Masters in Social Work into practice at a state agency assisting victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence and knew the struggles of a working mom. In the pages of her book, Ohden also notes her early admiration for Hillary Clinton and quotes approvingly from the likes of liberal favorites Joseph Campbell, Alice Walker and Arianna Huffington. The first time she shared her story publicly it was under the auspices of Feminists for Life.

Today, however, the left increasingly defends the boundaries of feminism with the litmus test of abortion rights. Ohden may not get past those gatekeepers. (Her Capitol Hill testimony against Planned Parenthood probably guarantees it.) She recently lamented that the media regularly “silences stories like mine.”

The NPR interviews may never come, but her story is a powerful one, powerfully told. It reads like a detective novel but its truth will elicit tears of sadness and joy. You Carried Me deserves to be carried wide and far. (For more from the author of “Abortion Survivor Tells Her Story in New Book” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Change We Can Believe In: Trump’s Executive Orders for American Sovereignty Are Game-Changers

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It’s Christmas come early for conservatives. Actually, for all Americans who care about homeland security.

Today represents a turning point in which President Donald Trump has used Obama’s pen and phone for the first game-changing series of executive actions.

The core job of the federal government is not to get involved in health insurance or “stimulate” the economy. The most important job is to protect our national sovereignty and the security of all the states. That begins with border security and crafting an immigration policy that puts American interests first. While some of our statutes need updating, many of the existing immigration laws are actually written properly, albeit have been ignored by Obama and past presidents. This is where Trump’s executive actions come into place.

The immigration laws were written as such that they gave the president broad latitude to clamp down on immigration and ratchet up enforcement, but not to loosen immigration and open up the borders. And rightfully so. A nation must retain the ability to shut down immigration swiftly in order to protect American sovereignty and security. On the other hand, any expansion must be done judiciously with the full input of the American people as reflected through a robust debate in Congress. Some liberal critics might suggest that conservatives are being hypocritical by promoting robust executive action from Trump after criticizing Obama’s use of his executive pen for years. The difference is that Trump is actually following the statutes passed by Congress while Obama violated the letter and spirit of the laws.

Suspending refugee program and cutting off visas from dangerous countries

The insane nightmare of importing the entire Middle East is long over. At least for now.

Here are the details from a preliminary draft:

Trump plans to shut off the issuance of all new immigrant and non-immigrant visas for 30 days from the following six volatile countries: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. After 30 days, the secretary of state and secretary of homeland security must submit a report to completely revamp the vetting process going forward.

Countries will have to submit within 60 days any information that the administration determines necessary, pursuant to the findings of this report, in order to adjudicate a visa application and ensure they are properly vetted. Any country that fails to submit this information will not be able to send foreign nationals to our country. All the while, the ban can be extended and expanded at any time.

In addition, the entire refugee resettlement program is suspended for four months pending a complete investigation of the program and a plan to restructure it and prioritize those who are truly in danger because of religious persecution. After 120 days, the program may resume but only for those countries from which Secretaries Kelly and Tillerson determine do not pose a threat. The program from Syria is completely suspended until the president personally gives the green light.

Furthermore, the order suspends the Visa Waiver Interview Program, and therefore requires that anyone wishing to renew their non-immigrant visa first undergo an in-person interview with U.S. officials in the consulate of their home country.

This common sense order can’t come at a better time. Obama has brought in 46,500 refugees, not including other visa categories, from these six countries just since the beginning of 2016. Obama’s bureaucrats are still running the State Department (and unless Tillerson is pressured to clean them out, they will continue to do so), and have brought in almost 1,000 refugees since Inauguration Day alone!

While liberals will cry foul about taking such action from the White House, we must remind them that the Immigration and Nationality Act (§ 212(f)) gives the president plenary power to “by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants.” This power is universal, enforceable at the will of the president, and applies any time for any circumstance.

Border fence

Trump also announced that he is directing DHS to begin the process of constructing the border fence, a signature promise of his campaign. Although this endeavor will eventually need more appropriations, which will likely be forthcoming in April, Trump absolutely has the statutory authority to begin construction. Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 — as amended by the REAL ID Act of 2005, the Secure Fence Act of 2006, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 — requires DHS to construct “not less than 700 miles” of fencing along the border. The locations, nature of the fence, time-frame, and any length beyond 700 miles are left up to the discretion of the president. In addition, the DHS secretary may waive all legal requirements that impede any construction.

As CRS observes:

Indeed, nothing in current statute would appear to bar DHS from potentially installing hundreds of miles of additional fencing or other barriers along the border, at least so long as the action was determined appropriate to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry.

[You can read more here for why a border fence is a force multiplier that will actually stop 95% of border crossings and is amazingly cost effective.]

Restoring interior enforcement

As part of today’s executive orders, Trump announced that they would cut off law enforcement grants to sanctuary cities. As I’ve noted before, this is one of the few areas where states have no right to push back and cutting off funding is part of existing law.

Perhaps the most underappreciated aspect of the orders was the restoration of the Secure Communities Program. Obama unilaterally abolished it as part of the DAPA amnesty and the elimination of this program is responsible for the surge in criminal aliens. Secure Communities was one of the most effective law enforcement programs in the field. It facilitated coordination between local law enforcement to share information through the universal fingerprint database on illegal aliens held in their prisons.

There is no reason anyone here illegally in the first place should remain in the country if they are in prison for any reason. Overall, ICE detainers declined 73% from the peak in March 2011 before the first round of Obama amnesties was fully implemented. Restoring Secure Communities will go a long way in getting rid over well over a million criminal aliens, a goal that any intellectually honest liberal should share.

Work to be done: End Obama’s illegal DACA amnesty

Obviously, there is a limit to what a president can do in one day. Certainly the list of accomplishments from today are enough to register as a great start. However, there is one action Trump must take immediately: the repeal of Obama’s DACA amnesty.

As we noted earlier this week, the Trump administration is giving indications that they don’t plan to rescind DACA. The prevailing talking point is that they want to focus on criminal aliens and dangerous refugees. And to their credit, they have certainly gone a long way towards addressing those issues today. However, the issue with Obama’s amnesty is that 1) it’s patently unconstitutional and 2) it’s not merely an issue of deportation but one of providing illegal aliens with Social Security cards and refundable tax credits. Trump’s own DHS is now issuing hundreds of unconstitutional DACA papers every day. That can and must end now simply by shutting off the spigot. We don’t have to deal with the deportation issue now. And while we’re at it, let’s stop calling them “Dreamers” and focus on American Dreamers, to paraphrase Trump.

Overall, Trump has gone a long way in embarking on some of the most important immigration changes in decades, and has fulfilled many of the homeland security ideas on our checklist, something that should have happened after 9/11.

Today is a blueprint for how to move forward. We need to continue focusing on the issues that matter, always remaining relentlessly on offense promoting our affirmative ideas on multiple fronts to overwhelm the other side rather than reacting to the latest nonsense in the media. Conservatives should be proud that the pressure and culture of accountability they built throughout this election bore fruit in such spectacular fashion.

As for Trump, if he sticks to policy, eases off on Twitter, and picks up his pen, he will go a long way to truly making America great again. (For more from the author of “Change We Can Believe In: Trump’s Executive Orders for American Sovereignty Are Game-Changers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Neither Trump nor Obama Deserve Credit for a Record Stock Market

/0 Comments/in , /by

There is a lot of excitement over the record-breaking performance of the stock market this week, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average broke the 20,000-point threshold for the first time ever Wednesday.

Acolytes of President Trump are naturally hailing the historic mark as major validation for the president’s economic agenda and influence. As Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway tweeted, this is the so-called “Trump effect.”

But the hard truth is, if you are going to directly attribute performance of the benchmark index to national optimism in President Trump, you must be intellectually honest and consistent.

Indeed, the reality is that, as the Bespoke Investment Group noted in June, the stock market had done “exceptionally well under President Obama”:

“The Dow Jones Industrial Average’s performance [under Obama] of 120.6% ranks as the sixth best of any US President since 1900, just behind Reagan and comfortably ahead of Truman, who at 74.4% is far behind.”

Now, an objective analysis of the past administration will tell you that the Obama economy only led to the worst recovery from an economic recession since World War II, at least.

So, how do you reconcile that with the soaring Dow of years past? What you need to understand is that stock markets are merely reflective of the investors’ whims and expectations. Investors speculate and put their money where they think they will make a good return.

And the president can have some influence over stock prices by affecting expectations. For example, President Trump has promised to repeal “out-of-control” regulations that are inhibiting entrepreneurs and manufacturers from building in America. That sends a certain signal to investors.

But the president does not have unilateral control over the economy. The Federal Reserve’s manipulation of interest rates, for example, likely had a tremendous role in the soaring of stocks during the Obama administration. But, in the end, the stock market is a very poor measure in trying to gauge the health of the economy, because investors can misinterpret signals. Such was the case in 1929, as the stock market soared on the precipice of the Great Depression.

Again, the stock market is merely an economic indicator for investment. It is not an indicator of economic health as a whole, nor does it signal the success, or lack thereof, of the president. Be careful not to treat it as such. (For more from the author of “Why Neither Trump nor Obama Deserve Credit for a Record Stock Market” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Levin: Who Will Pay for Trump’s Wall? I Don’t Care. Build It!

/0 Comments/in , /by

Tuesday night on his radio show, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin ripped through on the mainstream media babble over who is going to pay for America’s border wall per Donald Trump’s executive order earlier the same day.

“I don’t care if Mexico’s paying for it or not,” Levin said. “Build it!”

Reminding listeners that he believed the Mexican government was never going to directly pay for the wall, Levin confronted recent mainstream media fixation on the prospect that the burden will ultimately fall to taxpayers in the United States.

“Now they’re worried about the American taxpayer!” Levin exclaimed, referencing a recent ABC interview in which President Trump was repeatedly questioned on the subject .

“They’re not worried about the American taxpayer and all the costs associated with illegal immigration!” he continued, referencing the financial burdens created by the illegal population on such areas as education, healthcare, social services, and law enforcement. “No, they’re worried about the American taxpayer when they want to secure the damn border.”

Listen:

“I don’t care” who pays for it, he continued. “I really don’t. The federal government pisses away over $125 billion a year, so take a small portion of that and take care of that border!” (For more from the author of “Levin: Who Will Pay for Trump’s Wall? I Don’t Care. Build It!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why the March for Life Can Be a Remedy for ‘Fake News’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Washington, D.C., has had a few days to recover from the inauguration and the vile leftist Women’s March on Washington. But the nation’s capital is already gearing up for its next large, national demonstration with oceans of protestors taking peacefully to the streets … and you probably won’t hear a thing about it on the evening news.

This Friday, mainstream media outlets will have an opportunity to cover a potentially larger event of even greater significance: The March for Life. The event, held every year on or around the Jan. 22 anniversary of Roe v. Wade, features hundreds of thousands of people from across the country marching against abortion. It also enjoys notoriously low media coverage outside of conservative circles and outlets.

This is of course in stark contrast to media coverage of Richard Spencer’s fringe neo-Nazi, alt-“Right” gathering a few months ago, where networks, online outlets, and newspapers went absolutely gaga covering a handful of racists sitting in a multi-purpose room as if they heralded the dawn of a new era. Same with the Women’s March on Washington, which, from a firsthand perspective, appeared to be little more than a chance to wear a pink hat and show off the set of genitals you drew on some poster board. But I digress …

Of course, America’s distrust of the mainstream media is at an all-time high, the reputations built in decades past by figures like Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite have been largely undone by years of grossly lopsided coverage — election cycles rife with blatant bias and salacious, unverifiable stories about Russian prostitutes doing unspeakable acts with the now-president.

The Federalist’s Sean Davis diagnoses the press’ problem as such:

This country desperately needs a source of information that is deemed credible by people across the political spectrum. It needs a free press that is capable of and willing to hold everyone in power accountable, regardless of their party or their ideology and regardless of their personal feelings toward whomever happens to be in charge. We need a press that believes in the rule of law rather than rule by men. And we need a media establishment that cares more about getting facts right than about anything else.

“Judging by the type of coverage we’ve seen since the election, that institution does not currently exist in this country,” he concludes.

And while the obscene, the salacious, and the unverified get wall-to-wall coverage and lionizing headlines, don’t expect anywhere near the same this Friday. Very few groups in America are as familiar with the consequences of the “fake news” phenomenon as the pro-life movement.

When news related to the unborn isn’t being covered up by mainstream outlets it’s being grossly misrepresented. Take for example The New York Times’ recent coverage of the March for Life, which excluded nearly every reference to the march’s actual name, referring to it only as an “anti-abortion” event (save for the March for Life president’s title).

And even then, the NYT story’s hook wasn’t about the consistently record-breaking crowds, or the actual message, but that Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway would be speaking at an “anti-abortion” event. No, really.

This sort of thing is common practice. On Monday, an annual Marist poll, sponsored by the Knights of Columbus and released in anticipation of March for Life, found that a whopping 74 percent of Americans favor significant restrictions on abortions, with a mere 16 percent believing that it should be allowed without any restriction. While this leaves Hillary Clinton and her extremist abortion lobby cronies in some rather thin company, don’t expect to see this covered outside the usual sources of pro-life news and information.

More than likely, if there’s any coverage of the march by the mainstream media, expect little more than a 30-second clip about some sort of abortion protest on the National Mall that’s heavy on footage of the pro-abortion counter-protestors who, after all, are just out there fighting a bunch of fundamentalists in the name of “women’s rights.”

Perhaps this year ought to be the one to change that — to attend the march and speak to attendees in earnest. To try to truly understand where they’re coming from. To give them as much air time and ink as will be given the pro-abortion protesters annually found at the end of the parade route.

“If the media wants to continue to be seen as a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, ignore the march as usual. But if journalists are serious about improving their perceived objectivity and serving the American people at large, they should show up this Friday and give the tremendous pro-life crowds the news cycle they warrant,” reads a Monday morning statement from Terry Schilling, executive director of American Principles Project.

“This is a defining year for the pro-life movement. With a Republican House, Senate, and President, pro-life legislative goals are about to become pro-life legislative realities. The story is significant.”

To their credit, a few outlets in the wake of the presidential election have made concerted efforts to expand their horizons to include more voices, either by hiring new talent or realigning internally. While it may be comforting to see some outlets confront their extreme leftist imbalance in their newsrooms – which sometimes look more like North Korean election results – they should know they’re more than welcome on the Mall this Friday. (For more from the author of “Why the March for Life Can Be a Remedy for ‘Fake News'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Scientists, Women, the Press Think Trump Is Coming for Them

/0 Comments/in , /by

A week or so before the election, there was a rumor bumping around the Internet which said Trump, if he were to become President, would immediately begin rounding up LGBT folk and placing them into camps. I replied to one of these exceptionally nervous people on Twitter, “It won’t be so bad. I hear Thursdays will be lasagna nights.” That earned me a blocking. (I have since deleted my account so that I don’t cause any more hurt feelings.)

Over this past weekend, a mob of angry females tromped through the streets of Washington DC. Boy, were they upset. Fuming. Nary a happy face. Trouble was, no one was able to discover why these citizens were displeased. Perhaps the nation is suffering a critical shortage of blue hair dye? Can somebody look that up?

One woman not reduced to incoherent ravings about her cat (that’s what I thought I heard), said Donald Trump was going to come after women and break them up like “puzzle pieces.” Jack the Ripper, look out! It’s Donald Trump, puzzle breaker.

The eminent New York Times writer Ross Douthat isn’t shivering over internment camps or feminist puzzle breaking, but he did wring his hands over the possibility that Donald Trump “will escalate from tweets to Erdoganian crackdowns, that truly independent journalism will be marginalized while the White House breeds a lap dog press.”

It doesn’t do to criticize Times writers, of course, but is it even theoretically possible for the press to more resemble a fluffy white pampered poodle, blind with devotion, madly licking its master, and barring its wee yellow teeth and yipping at intruders than it did during Mr Obama’s tenure?

Fear of an all-powerful Trumpenführer has not been confined to dyspeptics, dye-jobs, and diarists. The officially brightest among us — scientists themselves! — have convinced themselves Trump is going to confiscate their data. Headline at Forbes: “Fearing White House Purge Of Climate Science, Scientists Frantically Copying Data.” The author, James Conca, said:

It’s not like the new administration is going to start burning books or flushing files down the toilet, but website access will disappear, reports will be put in deep storage, and datasets will become more difficult to access, or will degrade in quality, as funding is cut from the agencies maintaining them.

Conca says this data is needed because the United States has been under attack from the Polar Vortex, a beast which he intimates was caused by global warming (which he mistakenly refer to as “climate change”).

Conca is calling these deletions, which have not happened, a “purging of science” which will result in the nation “sliding further into the abyss where truth and lies have equal weight and science is just another ideology to ignore when it’s inconvenient.”

Engadget asks whether the data panic is “irrational.” “Possibly”, they admit, but then they claim the new administration “has been picking climate change deniers for positions in relevant agencies, and has threatened to stop ‘politicized science.’” (Incidentally, no Trump hire has ever denied the climate has changed.)

How Trump will reach into the computers of all those scientists and vacuum up their precious bits hasn’t been specified. Maybe he will hire the Russians who hacked and stole the election from its rightful winner to do the job? Scientists will come in to their offices after a weekend to discover their hard drives have been purged of the proof the sky will soon fall and replaced with JPEGs of Rosie O’Donnell laughing.

Scary stuff! No wonder Harvard is sponsoring an “Archive-a-thon” to begin the backups before Trump comes after them. The announcement doesn’t say, but it’s a good guess the Archive-a-thon will take place in a Safe Space complete with puppies and coloring books to calm the nerves of these great brains. Don’t scoff. It’s got to the point where there is serious talk of scientists having a march on Washington.

Since there is so much angst out there, it is well to review its cause. Progressives assured us, in turn, that Ronald Reagan was Hitler, that George Bush père et fils were Hitler, that Barack Obama opponents John McCain and Mitt Romney were each Hitler, really that every Republican since Goldwater was Hitler, and so none of us would have been surprised to learn that Donald Trump was Hitler, too.

But it was worse! The Left insisted Trump was literally Hitler. Which brings to mind Mr Trump’s inauguration speech in which he spoke of “an education system flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge” — including, as we have just seen, knowledge of the word literally.

After decades of creating and telling themselves horror stories, it was inevitable that the Left would begin believing them. It is thus not surprising that Trump’s election resulted in a full-blown moral panic. We’re in for four (or eight?) years of having everything that goes wrong blamed on Donald Trump. Might as well enjoy it. (For more from the author of “Scientists, Women, the Press Think Trump Is Coming for Them” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

When Pro-Abortion Sentiments Trump Science and Common Sense

/0 Comments/in , /by

There is a reason why many women contemplating abortion decide not to abort when they see an ultrasound of their baby. There is no denying the humanity of this tiny creature, which is anything but a clump of cells.

As the baby grows in the womb and is seen by ultrasound imaging, it’s common to hear parents exclaim, “Look at those little hands! Look at that adorable nose (it looks like Grandpa’s nose, doesn’t it?)! And look — it’s a girl! (Or, It’s a boy!)”

How amazing it is to see the ultrasound of your baby, especially when it’s your first child. Not surprisingly, both of our daughters, now in their late 30s, had the identical reaction when they saw the ultrasounds of their first babies: How could anyone abort their child?

It is for good reason that pro-abortion legislators fight against laws that would require abortion clinics to show an ultrasound of the baby prior to the decision to abort. They know it would be bad for business (plus, they argue, it adds to the inconvenience of the mother wanting to dispose of the contents of her womb).

It is hard to deny the personhood of the fetus when you see an ultrasound, which is why, during last year’s Super Bowl, Dorito’s incurred the wrath of NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) when it aired an innocent, light-hearted, commercial featuring a very pregnant woman, her husband, and an ultrasound of their baby. According to NARAL, Dorito’s had committed the cardinal sin of “humanizing fetuses.” Oh, the very thought of it!

But there is something even worse than that Dorito’s ad. According to a bizarre article in The Atlantic, pro-life groups are being devious and deceptive when they use ultrasounds to convince women that their babies are human. How low will these pro-lifers go?

The Atlantic’s Ultrasound Deniers

The article, written by Moira Weigel and posted on Tuesday, was originally titled “How the Ultrasound Pushed the Idea That a Fetus Is a Person” with the subtitle, “The technology has been used to create sped-up videos that falsely depict a response to stimulus.” (Its current title is, “How Ultrasound Became Political.” The subtitle remains the same.)

Weigel’s article, which was marred by embarrassing errors (as pointed out by Alexandra DeSanctis on the National Review), not to mention being marred by bizarre claims, denied the reality (and significance) of fetal heartbeats as early as five or six weeks old, downplayed the evidence of ultrasounds and claimed that — gasp! — the pro-life movement was yet another example of patriarchal overreach. Yes, the science of “ultrasound made it possible for the male doctor to evaluate the fetus without female interference.” Those dastardly, duplicitous males! They are at it once again.

For good reason Sean Davis of the Federalist wrote that, “Moira Weigel took a sledgehammer to basic science and then did her best to vacuum its brains out before anyone could figure out what just happened.” The title of his article was as accurate as it was snarky: “Abortion Science: Heartbeats Are Imaginary, Unborn Babies Aren’t Alive, And Ultrasounds Are Just Tools Of The Patriarchy.”

Further underscoring the absurdity of Weigel’s article was this tweet from Denise Russell, which Davis reproduced: “Before ultrasounds, a woman had to wait until delivery to find out if she was getting a puppy, a goat, or a human.” How did we forget that?

Responding to the Republican-led effort to pass the “Heartbeat Bill,” which would prohibit doctors from aborting a baby if a heartbeat was detected (in the words of its sponsor, Congressman Steve King, “If a heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected”), Weigel asks, “What is a fetal heartbeat? And why does it matter?”

Her answer to these questions can be summed up, respectively, in three words, “Nothing” and “It doesn’t.”

The Heartbeat of a Child

Forget the fact that doctors check the baby’s heartbeat during each pre-natal visit, since this is an indicator of health, or the fact that they carefully monitor the baby’s heartbeat during delivery to be sure the child is OK. And forget the fact that doctors look for a pulse to see if someone is still living or the fact that a person is declared dead when their heart stops beating for good.

No. When it comes to abortion, all those facts conveniently disappear, and the heartbeat of that tiny pre-born child is of no significance at all. Indeed, Weigel opines, “Doctors do not even call this rapidly dividing cell mass a ‘fetus’ until nine weeks into pregnancy.” (I must be getting old, but somehow, I don’t recall my wife, Nancy, saying to me decades ago, “Honey, I just got the test results back and I have a rapidly dividing cell mass inside of me!”)

But it is not just fetal heartbeats which have no meaning for Weigel. Ultrasounds also have no meaning for her since … well, since she’s doesn’t believe they should. (If you think I’m exaggerating, read her article.) She notes that posting pictures of ultrasounds on social media has “heightened the social reality of the unborn,” as if this was somehow a bad, misleading thing.

And she points to an American couple who “posted a video of their sonogram fast-forwarded so that their fetus appeared to be clapping in time as they sang, ‘When You’re Happy and You Know It Clap Your Hands.’” The implication is that because the video was sped up, giving the false impression that the baby was clapping to the beat, that the more basic impression was also false, namely that there was a little human being in that mother’s womb who was putting its two little hands together. Pretty good for a clump of cells and a mass of tissue!

Although Weigel cites those who claim that pregnant women who see their ultrasounds are less likely to abort, she disputes these claims, pointing to a “2014 study published by the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, which drew on the medical records of nearly 16,000 women seeking abortions” and “found that viewing an ultrasound had a negligible impact on whether they decided to proceed.”

Other studies I have read have come to very different conclusions (see here, for examples), and a pro-life ministry that offers ultrasounds to women considering abortion has also seen tremendous results. But I doubt that all the studies in the world would convince Weigel right now, since her objections seem to be based on ideology more than science. As observed by Alexandra DeSanctis, “The reason that progressives such as Weigel denounce ultrasound technology is … because they want to continue denying the humanity of the unborn child, a humanity that is undeniable whether or not the mother wants the child.”

Yes, “Pro-life activists and parents who want to keep their unborn children will acknowledge this humanity. We all know it. Abortionists know it. Mothers aborting their babies know it. Planned Parenthood executives know it. Perhaps many are able to dull their consciences and convince themselves that it’s “just a clump of cells.” But deep down, they must know. We all do. And that’s why the Left has to work so hard to deny it.”

And the harder the Left works to deny the humanity of the unborn child, the more it exposes its moral and scientific bankruptcy. In that regard, Weigel’s article does a great service to the pro-life cause, and for that, we should be glad. Truth is sweeping away the lies. (For more from the author of “When Pro-Abortion Sentiments Trump Science and Common Sense” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How President Trump Could Make the IRS Great Again

/0 Comments/in , /by

The president, Congress, and the American taxpayer are none of them fans of the Internal Revenue Service. Voters were justifiably angered by well-publicized mismanagement in recent years on the part of high-ranking IRS executives, many of whom are gone but are probably collecting sizeable government pensions. These missteps included:

Lois Lerner’s stone walling of Tea Party groups;

IRS employees subsequently pleading the 5th before Congress;

an extravagant Disneyland training conference;

a multi-million-dollar technology contract awarded to a military school drop out with a fictitious injury who is now doing hard time for killing his wife;

and IRS executives goofing off during the workday to practice line dancing (at least it wasn’t disco dancing) and making skits parodying Star Trek and Gilligan’s Island.

Despite all this, the IRS is not an agency out of control. The IRS answers to an alphabet soup of other government agencies which monitor its operations, such as the Government Accountability Office, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, and the IRS Oversight Board. The current IRS commissioner has clamped down on abuses and in many ways the pendulum has swung the other way. Now rank and file employees (the people who didn’t create the problems but have to clean up the mess) must complete a form and get high level approval to attend a free training conference across the street from their offices. Bathroom passes are probably next.

The bad news is that the IRS is now being starved of resources which it needs to keep the government running — the government which you the voters just elected and inaugurated. On Monday, President Trump signed an Executive Order freezing all federal hiring not directly related to the military, public safety, and public health. President Trump should have also exempted the IRS. Here’s why:

Why IRS Needs Funds Restored

The Federal Government’s fiscal condition is dire. The national debt hovers around $20 trillion ($20,000,000,000,000), with almost $9 trillion added during the Obama Administration. In 2016, the federal government ran about $1 trillion in the red. The voluntary compliance rate hovers only around 81%, and the Gross Tax Gap, the estimated amount of taxes that should be collected before enforcement efforts but is not, stands at $468 billion. This figure does not include the unpaid taxes from illegal activities such as pimping and drug dealing.

Despite the ballooning national debt and massive annual budget deficits, Congress has slashed the IRS budget 19% in constant dollars since 2010. This has resulted in the IRS hemorrhaging employees, from 95,000 in 2010 to 80,000 in 2015. This decline in personnel has resulted in fewer auditors, investigators, tax collectors, and people answering the phone. There are fewer people working at the IRS now than when Ronald Reagan took office.

In 1998, the IRS had about 3,300 highly trained special agents combating tax fraud, money laundering, and related financial crimes (I was one of them). Today there are fewer than 2,300. The same trend exists for revenue agents (the people who conduct field audits) and revenue officers (they do the actual collections). At this rate, getting caught cheating on your taxes is going to be about as likely as Publishers Clearing House knocking on your door.

The money invested in the IRS produces astronomical returns. The IRS uses the $5 billion Congress gives it for enforcement and reduces the Gross Tax Gap by $62 billion, resulting in an estimated annual Net Tax Gap of $406 billion. In other words, for every dollar you give the IRS for enforcement it returns $12 to the Treasury. MIT-trained economist Dr. Jeff Dubin wrote in a 2007 article that a $353 million additional investment would result in $16.8 billion, between in additional dollars collected and greater voluntary compliance. No business owner would forgo the opportunity to earn that kind of return on investment.

To tackle America’s fiscal nightmare, President Trump should exempt the IRS from the hiring freeze and press Congress to appropriate the funds necessary to close the Tax Gap. Start with an extra $2 billion. That would bring the IRS budget back to 2010 budget levels. Then hold the IRS accountable for every dime. Tell it to start with cracking down on the pimps and the dope dealers who never did an honest day’s work (I have a few names they can start with). Then go after the fraudulent tax preparers who add fake dependents and abuse the ITIN system to bilk the Treasury out of tens of billions of dollars in bogus refunds. Stop chasing the little guy, like my friend who is a semi-retired septuagenarian who filed his corporate return late (he was in the hospital) and is fighting a $1,700 fine.

President Trump has big plans to Make American Great Again. To do that, he needs to make the IRS Great Again. To my friends at the IRS I say this: Sharpen your pencils and double knot your wingtips. It’s time to get to work! (For more from the author of “How President Trump Could Make the IRS Great Again” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

CNN Responds to My Application for Its Fake News Position

/0 Comments/in , /by

The following is the CNN human resources department’s reply to Rachel’s application for their new position of fake news editor. You can find her application here.

Dear (not to imply a level of intimacy that would make you uncomfortable) Ms., Miss, Mrs. Alexander (not to imply a marriage status or non-fluid gender identity, not that there’s anything wrong with that, if that’s who you feel yourself to be, and not to exclude Mr.),

We have reviewed your request to join our team (not that it’s a competitive type of team, everyone is equal here) as a reporter on fake news.

You must have misunderstood what we are looking for. We don’t run fake news here. We consider ourselves a ministry of truth, as the most trusted cable news network. We are looking to expand the work that our fake news expert Brian Stelter is doing.

We are looking for someone with a Media Matters, Snopes or Politifact approach to fake news. This means calling out biased, fake news sources like Fox News, The Washington Times and the Drudge Report. Or The Stream, a right-wing Christian site based in Dallas.

For example, Politifact has a great article entitled, “Fake News Purveyors Cheer On, Echo Trump Team’s Lies About Inauguration Crowd Size.” Not only does the article call out several offensive sites, but it goes further and notes that the sites all make revenue from Google advertising, so they are violating the company’s terms of service by providing misleading content. Politifact went the extra mile and is trying to shut these sites down.

To be honest, Ms./Miss/Mrs./Mr. Alexander, we don’t think you could do this. We think you’d be too biased.

Further, we want our new reporter to reach even higher levels of accuracy and zealousness. A really good reporter would go beyond what the Politifact article did and break down the Trump team’s inauguration numbers, explaining why they were fake. Or better still, keep repeating that the numbers were fake with smug authority and furrowed brow until it becomes accepted common wisdom.

We don’t think you understand that readers can only trust reputable sources like CNN, the New York Times and Huffington Post. You can generally distinguish a reputable site from the riff-raff because we use the AP Stylebook (the Times has its own stylebook, but it’s very similar). This guarantees our objectivity. For example, AP style requires the neutral term “anti-abortion” instead of the biased term “pro-life.”

The fake news sites use prejudicial terms like “Islamic terrorism” and “illegal immigrant,” so they should be easy to spot. We were alarmed to notice when reviewing the writing you submitted that you used these terms. We do not hire bigots who think that Muslim freedom fighters are “terrorists” and that undocumented visitors to this country are “illegal immigrants.”

We’re afraid we also doubt your ability to recognize fake news. How good are you at parsing every word in order to find one that looks off? President Trump’s Twitter feed should be a gold mine for this position, but we suspect you do not agree.

Take this tweet, for example, where Trump brags about meeting with “automobile industry leaders.” That looks objective, right? But that’s the genius of rightwing fake news. Who are these men really? What would the objective journalist call them? They’re greedy, wealthy white men and polluters largely responsible for the massive increase in manmade global warming.

This position requires the ability to create effective sound bites, in order to make sure the fake news exposés go viral. The stronger phrase “fake fake news” should be reserved to describe the worst offenses, like any story about someone connected to the Clintons who died under mysterious circumstances. “Trump fake news machine” should be used anytime the president says anything incorrect, which seems to be every other tweet.

Although it looks like your skills and the needs of CNN do not mesh, feel free to reapply and submit some samples of your work exposing the “real fake news.” Getting published in Media Matters will improve your chances with us. We hired Stelter in part because he came from one of the world’s most honest publications, The New York Times.

In keeping with our tolerance and diversity policies, we write you in peace and solidarity with all the oppressed peoples of the earth, the whales and all endangered creatures, and especially with the Palestinians oppressed by Israel.

Right on, sister (or brother if you wish)!

Your comrades at CNN

(For more from the author of “CNN Responds to My Application for Its Fake News Position” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.