With DC District Court Oral Argument, a Chance to Push Back Against EPA’s Power Grab

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Sept. 27, the en banc panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia will preside over oral argument in State of West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency.

This will likely be one of the most momentous cases ever to be decided by any federal court.

At issue: Twenty-eight states and numerous private companies and trade associations are challenging an EPA regulation that seeks to cut carbon dioxide emissions in the energy industry by over 30 percent and nationalize the country’s electric power grid. The 1,500-page regulation, known as the Clean Power Plan, would give the federal government authority over how states use their natural resources.

The Clean Power Plan mandates carbon dioxide cuts to America’s power fleet, forcing states to make difficult, costly decisions such as switching from reliable conventional fuels to intermittent, expensive renewables, such as wind and solar.

The Environmental Protection Agency takes the position that man-made carbon dioxide is causing global climate change and therefore must be tightly controlled, at any cost. Carbon dioxide is essential to life on earth, and the global climate has been heating and cooling for millennia.

Regardless, the Clean Power Plan seeks to reverse what may be natural climate fluctuation at the cost of creating power blackouts, higher energy costs, job losses in the energy sector, and price spikes throughout the nation’s economy, including for necessities such as food and water.

Just as importantly, because carbon dioxide is everywhere and in everything, the Clean Power Plan arrogates enormous regulatory power to the EPA. Such a power grab by a federal regulatory agency is not only illegal, but is flat-out unconstitutional. It usurps states’ rights to regulate the use of their natural resources, in violation of the 10th Amendment.

Months ago, the Supreme Court recognized this troublesome constitutional issue and stayed the EPA’s enforcement of the Clean Power Plan pending resolution of the case in the lower court. In response, the D.C. Circuit decided to hear oral argument en banc before a panel of all judges serving on the court, rather than just the three-judge panel to which it was to have been assigned.

Beyond the constitutional issues, the case raises important issues regarding the rule of law and the extent to which the EPA must obey the law, just like the rest of us. In promulgating the Clean Power Plan under the federal Clean Air Act, the EPA violated the act in at least three ways.

First, carbon dioxide is emitted from “numerous and diverse” sources throughout the nation, not just from power plants. The act requires the EPA to regulate those types of ubiquitous emissions under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards program, which involves a multiyear process to determine the extent to which nationwide ambient air emissions of a particular substance are harmful to human health and welfare.

The next step requires the EPA to determine the extent to which man-made emissions of such a substance should be curtailed to lower national ambient air levels. The Clean Power Plan seeks to shortcut those legal requirements by regulating power plants under the source-specific standards of the Clean Air Act reserved for localized air pollution problems. Although it may be easier for the EPA to do so, the act does not give the EPA that kind of authority.

Second, because power plants as a category are already regulated under a different provision of the act dealing with toxic air pollutants, the EPA has no authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants unless it finds that carbon dioxide is directly toxic to human health—a finding it would be impossible for the EPA to make for the obvious reason that carbon dioxide is essential to human life.

Third, the EPA even failed to comply with the source-specific requirements of the act because it neglected to make a finding that carbon dioxide emissions from power plants endanger human health and the environment. Without that endangerment finding, the regulation cannot stand.

These are only some of the issues that the D.C. Circuit will hear at 9:30 a.m. on Sept. 27. The court has devoted the entire day to oral argument, and many lawyers will present their cases. Even more lawyers, media representatives, policy analysts, politicians, and others will be present to observe and listen. We can only hope the court will uphold our constitutional freedoms, rather than kowtowing to the EPA’s power grab. (For more from the author of “With DC District Court Oral Argument, a Chance to Push Back Against EPA’s Power Grab” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

One Lawmaker’s Plan to Rein in Spending and Assert Conservative Principles

/0 Comments/in , /by

Before lawmakers in the House could read the Senate’s plan to fund the government after the end of the month, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was dismissing the measure out of hand, calling it “unconstitutional.”

Congress is trying to hammer out a compromise to extend federal funding before the government’s annual spending authority expires Oct. 1. But King complained that GOP leadership, in the process, is furthering President Barack Obama’s executive actions to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

The Iowa Republican has drafted an alternative spending package. And although he admits his plan isn’t likely to pass, he says it provides a conservative benchmark that contrasts with the short-term spending solution pushed by GOP leadership in both the House and Senate.

“They’re asking us to vote for an appropriations bill that funds clearly unconstitutional acts,” King told The Daily Signal, citing Obama’s move to exempt the children of illegal immigrants from deportation. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., predicted Thursday morning that House passage of the Senate’s continuing resolution would “be low drama.”

Shortly afterward, King predicted that Senate Republicans’ package could not pass the House without Democrats’ support.

“A greater percentage of Democrats will vote for this [short-term spending measure] than the percentage of Republicans in the House,” King said. “I think that’s true, and to me that says there’s not a reason to hold back and put an alternative down.”

That alternative, which King said he would introduce Friday, is further to the right than anything proposed previously, even by the conservative House Freedom Caucus and the much larger Republican Study Committee.

His plan is meant to serve as a “benchmark,” King said, to show what’s possible if Republicans keep both chambers of Congress and retake the White House in the Nov. 8 elections.

It contrasts with the Senate measure, unveiled Thursday, which locks in spending at the current $1.07 trillion level until Dec. 9 and doesn’t include any of the policy riders conservatives have pushed. The Dec. 9 expiration date would mean that defeated or retiring lawmakers, who don’t leave until January, would vote on a new measure to continue to fund the government.

On the fiscal front, the King plan adopts a spending position that even conservatives abandoned as politically impractical this year. It would lock in a government spending level of $1.04 trillion, nearly a $30 billion reduction from the current level.

The plan, some of which reads like a carbon copy of the Republican Party’s 2016 platform, calls for repealing 14 of Obama’s marquee accomplishments.

King proposes to defund Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank regulation of the financial industry, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan. He calls for barring resettlement of refugees in the U.S., halting implementation of the nuclear deal with Iran, and stopping the transfer of internet regulation from a U.S. agency to a global body.

The King plan also would halt funds for executive enforcement of the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage and the Department of Education’s transgender bathroom directive to schools that receive federal funds. It would block federal funding of Planned Parenthood and implementation of the EPA’s Waters of the United States regulation.

King also would stop new regulations from the Labor Department, defunding implementation of new overtime rules and fiduciary rules, which govern private retirement investment.

And it would take aim at the Obama administration’s executive orders relaxing immigration enforcement and implementation of the Paris accords on climate change.

King admits the “odds of succeeding aren’t good” for his grab bag of conservative priorities. But that’s not the goal, he told The Daily Signal:

It puts a marker down that says to the negotiators that there are a core of people here who actually believe in our platform and our conservative principles, and we’re just not willing to walk away without expressing them.

(For more from the author of “One Lawmaker’s Plan to Rein in Spending and Assert Conservative Principles” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

In New Spending Bill, McConnell Sides With Liberals, Ignores Conservative Priorities

/0 Comments/in , /by

After voting to proceed to a bill that didn’t exist earlier this week, the Senate has finally produced text of the continuing resolution, a short-term government spending bill.

The bill, written behind closed doors by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, was brought to the floor late Thursday afternoon, and for the majority of Senate Republicans, represented their first opportunity to see the text. According to McConnell, senators will have four days (two of them on a weekend) to review the bill before having to cast their votes next week.

As far as conservative priorities go, the bill is a failure. Among its many obvious flaws, it funds the government through Dec. 9—setting up a lame-duck session of Congress.

In the lame-duck session, which occurs after the election but before new lawmakers are sworn in, unaccountable legislators are likely to pass a bevy of backroom deals, to the detriment of representative democracy (and, we can assume, to the wallets of the taxpayer).

Even though it only funds the government for a scant 69 days, the McConnell continuing resolution manages to do it at the bloated Boehner-Obama spending levels that were jammed down the throats of conservatives in 2015.

In doing so, the continuing resolution sets up yet another spending cliff that will spawn a false panic in the lame-duck session, and lay the groundwork for more “must-pass” terrible deals. In other words, in December, lawmakers will once more have to pass yet another spending bill in order to ensure the government continues normal operations.

Worse still, this continuing resolution fundamentally grows government. The bill includes $500 million for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to address flooding in Louisiana—despite the $12 billion the agency already has.

Furthermore, it grants President Barack Obama vast new hiring authority, so he can bring in a bunch of bureaucrats to burrow into federal agencies right before he leaves office.

The most troubling elements of the McConnell continuing resolution, however, come down to policy. Conservative priorities are abandoned—or outright ignored—while liberal policies are given priority.

Conservatives in the House and Senate have long been focused on delaying the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) transition—the deal that will pass governance of the internet from the United States to a “multi-stakeholder community” that includes authoritarian countries like Russia, China, and Iran.

Despite a multitude of congressional hearings and engagement from key Senate Republicans, McConnell chose not to address the ICANN transition—and in doing so, will allow it to proceed as scheduled on Oct. 1.

Perhaps the biggest slap in the face to conservatives, however, is the bill’s treatment of emergency funding to address the Zika virus. Whether or not Planned Parenthood—America’s largest abortion provider—would receive access to the Zika funding was a key sticking point in negotiations of the continuing resolution, with Democrats insisting that Planned Parenthood be able to access Zika funding, and conservatives in the House and Senate demanding that they be barred from doing so.

In his final bill, McConnell chose to side with the Democrats over conservatives. Not only does this bill lack a prohibition on funding for Planned Parenthood, it actually creates the opportunity for Planned Parenthood to get a raise.

Yes, you read that right. Under the funding bill written by the Senate majority leader, Planned Parenthood can get a raise.

How? According to analysis by The Heritage Foundation’s Roger Severino, Planned Parenthood already receives over $500 million in taxpayer money every year (legally, this money must be spent on family planning services other than abortion).

In the McConnell continuing resolution, Planned Parenthood gets its normal half a billion dollars in taxpayer funding. However, because the continuing resolution also gives it access to Zika funds, Planned Parenthood can receive even more money.

This state of play was confirmed earlier this week in press reports of Democrats publicly gloating over their win. With McConnell’s office silent on the state of negotiations, the Democrat leader in waiting, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told Congressional Quarterly that the “Zika issue has been resolved” because GOP negotiators were “dropping all their riders.”

This short-term continuing resolution contains nothing for conservatives to be happy about. It hands Democrats victories while ignoring conservative priorities and growing government.

The fact that Senate leadership would put this type of bill forward now—before they have to face the voters in November—should raise serious concerns about what they intend to try and pass in the lame-duck session, when even fewer people will be watching. (For more from the author of “In New Spending Bill, McConnell Sides With Liberals, Ignores Conservative Priorities” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

As Trump Offers Cleveland New Hope, Pastors Pray to Protect Him From ‘Satanic Attack’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Evangelical Christians of multiple races mixed their faith in God with their faith that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump can heal the nation on Wednesday.

On Wednesday, Trump appeared at the Midwest Vision and Values Pastors Leadership Conference in Cleveland.

“I want to thank the African-American community because, I don’t know if you’ve been watching, but the poll numbers are going like a rocket ship,” Trump said. “I fully understand the African-American community has suffered from discrimination.”

Trump said America’s cities must be rebuilt.

“It breaks my heart to see any American left behind or to see a city like Cleveland that has had so many struggles, and that there are many wrongs that still must be made right,” the GOP nominee said.

After Trump spoke to the assembled crowd, Pastor Darrell Scott, a co-host of the event, spoke to Trump.

Scott said a “nationally known” pastor, whom he did not identify, had warned Trump “that if you choose to run for president, there’s going to be a concentrated Satanic attack against you.”

“He said there’s going to be a demon, principalities and powers, that are going to war against you on a level that you’ve never seen before, and I’m watching it every day,” Scott said, referring to the opposition Trump’s candidacy has spawned.

Scott’s wife, Belinda, then led the group in prayer as they gathered around Trump.

“Now God, I ask that you would touch this man, Donald J. Trump. Give him the anointing to lead this nation,” she prayed.

The meeting was open to clergy or all faiths and political ideologies.

“I think it’s good he’s open to hearing from clergy,” said Pastor Mike Wingerd of Emmanuel Assembly of God. “I’m very glad he’s concerned about religious freedom.”

Scott, who led the session, had spoken for Trump at the Republican National Convention.

“America is a melting pot, a country of diversity. We stand poised to make history, by standing together as Americans, as one. We are here as Americans regardless of race, creed or color. We are here as those who hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” he said.

“The truth is the Democratic Party has failed us,” Scott said. “At home, our debt has grown, we are spiritually empty and we are more divided now than we have ever been before. Abroad, we are neither respected, we’re not feared by our adversaries, and our friends cannot count on us either. This is their legacy, and we need to make a sharp turn. We need to put into practice the great ideas and principles that our country was founded on, and which, after God, are the source of strength that has made this nation great.” (For more from the author of “As Trump Offers Cleveland New Hope, Pastors Pray to Protect Him From ‘Satanic Attack'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Every Immigrant Without High School Degree Will Cost Taxpayers $640,000

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Thursday, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will release its report on “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” According to the report, first generation immigrants as a group increase the nation’s fiscal deficit. In other words, the government benefits they receive exceed the taxes paid.

The National Academies’ report provides 75-year fiscal projections for new immigrants and their descendants. The fiscal impact varies greatly according to the education level of the immigrant. Low-skill immigrants are shown to impose substantial fiscal costs that extend far into the future. The future government benefits they will receive greatly exceed the taxes they will pay.

On average, a nonelderly adult immigrant without a high school diploma entering the U.S. will create a net fiscal cost (benefits received will exceed taxes paid) in both the current generation and second generation. The average net present value of the fiscal cost of such an immigrant is estimated at $231,000, a cost that must be paid by U.S. taxpayers.

The concept of “net present value” is complex: it places a much lower value on future expenditures than on current expenditures.

One way to grasp net present value is that it represents the total amount of money that government would have to raise today and put in a bank account earning interest at 3 percent above the inflation rate in order to cover future costs.

Thus, as each adult immigrant without a high school diploma enters the country, the government would need to immediately put aside and invest $231,000 to cover the future net fiscal cost (total benefits minus total taxes) of that immigrant.

Converting a net present value figure into future outlays requires information on the exact distribution of costs over time. That data is not provided by the National Academies.

However, a rough estimate of the future net outlays to be paid by taxpayers (in constant 2012 dollars) for immigrants without a high school diploma appears to be around $640,000 per immigrant over 75 years. The average fiscal loss is around $7,551 per year (in constant 2012 dollars).

Slightly more than 4 million adult immigrants without a high school diploma have entered the U.S. since 2000 and continue to reside here. According to the estimates in the National Academies report, the net present value of the future fiscal costs of those immigrants is $920 billion.

This means government would have to immediately raise taxes by $920 billion and put that sum into a bank account earning 3 percent plus inflation per year to cover the future fiscal losses that will be generated by those immigrants.

To cover the future cost, each taxpaying U.S. household, on average, would have to pay an immediate lump sum of over $10,000. Costs would go up in the future as more than 200,000 additional adult immigrants without a high school diploma arrive in the country each year.

Again, converting a net present value figure into future outlays requires information on the exact timing of future costs that are not provided by the National Academies. However, a rough estimate of the future net outlays (benefits minus taxes) for the 4 million adult immigrants without a high school degree who have entered the U.S. since 2000 is perhaps $2.6 trillion.

One might argue that these estimates are exaggerated because many immigrants may return to their country of origin. But the report estimates already have a re-emigration rate of 31 percent built in.

A surge of low-skill immigrant workers may push down wages and thereby reduce consumer costs. But the National Academies report indicates such consumer gains would be modest, and if the wages of less-educated immigrants are driven down, the wages of less-educated U.S. workers will fall as well. Any consumer gains would come at the cost of wage losses for the most vulnerable American workers.

One might also argue that is it misleading to assign the costs of government “public goods” such as defense and interest of the national debt to recent immigrants. But the National Academies estimates exclude such public goods costs.

Advocates of ongoing, massive low-skill immigration have suggested that low-skill immigrants generate large-scale economic externalities that benefit U.S. workers. The National Academies report finds minimal evidence of such effects.

The continuing inflow of low-skill immigrants into the U.S. creates large fiscal burdens for U.S. taxpayers in both the present and the future. (For more from the author of “Every Immigrant Without High School Degree Will Cost Taxpayers $640,000” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

House, Senate Republicans Jockey to Advance Short-Term Spending Measure

/0 Comments/in , /by

The chairman of the largest conservative caucus in Congress is pushing House Republicans to pass a stopgap spending package before the Senate can finish work on its version.

The government’s authority to spend money expires at the end of the fiscal year, Oct. 1. And Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is racing ahead on the upper chamber’s version of the spending package before that deadline.

But the House is stuck in neutral.

Pointing to that inactivity, Republican Study Committee Chairman Bill Flores, R-Texas, introduced a continuing resolution that would put federal spending on autopilot until Dec. 9, advance a Zika aid package, and fully fund veterans affairs and military infrastructure programs.

“What our CR does is try to advance a responsible spending program for the federal government that has a few key conservative riders and has no leftist riders on it,” Flores told The Daily Signal, referring to the short-term budget measure and “policy riders” that lawmakers often attach to spending bills.

Those policy provisions would require tougher vetting for refugees who are “from areas dominated by radical Islamic terrorists.”

It also would halt the White House plan to relinquish control of ICANN, the global nonprofit that functions as the phonebook of the internet by curating website domain names. Flores described the administration’s move as “Obama’s internet giveaway.”

The package is more compromise than conservative wish list, Flores admits. Since the beginning of the year, RSC has spearheaded the effort to reduce spending and avoid legislating during a lame-duck session of Congress—the period after the election but before the next Congress convenes.

Though the plan concedes both priorities, Flores said it’s the best possibility in the current political climate.

“Look, I don’t like [continuing resolutions].” Flores said. “I don’t think it’s a responsible way to fund the government. However, when you get put in a position where the government is going to be held hostage—particularly troop pay—then we’ve got to do this in a responsible manner.”

The Texas representative blames McConnell, the Senate majority leader, for caving to Democrats and creating the current debacle.

Before House Republicans could agree on a unified position on spending, McConnell announced he would negotiate the details of a continuing resolution with Senate Democrats and the White House.

Though by law spending bills must originate in the House, the Senate has repurposed a bill from the lower chamber as a “legislative shell.” But while that procedure gave the upper chamber a head start, it still hasn’t been able to agree on what will be in the final package.

Democrats insist they won’t vote for any bill that includes conservative policy riders that they call “poison pills.” And Flores said he is worried that Senate Republicans, eager to skip Washington for the campaign trail, are willing to oblige.

“The way Mitch McConnell has conducted these negotiations,” Flores said, “we were afraid that too many conservative priorities would be thrown into the ditch and liberal priorities would be attached.”

McConnell’s office did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

The spending plan also excludes some Democrat priorities. Flores said it would prevent revival of the Export-Import Bank, stop renewable energy initiatives, and prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving any funds to fight the Zika virus.

The Zika issue has caused consternation among conservatives, who don’t want money appropriated to fight the virus to be used by Planned Parenthood. It’s not clear that the absence of an earmark alone is enough to stop money from flowing to the nation’s largest abortion provider, though.

The Flores proposal has attracted backing from the more conservative corners of Congress. Tuesday night, several members of the House Freedom Caucus expressed initial support for the Flores bill and frustration at the current situation.

“We want regular order. Speaker [Paul] Ryan talked about regular order. Well, by golly, let’s have regular order,” said Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., before launching into an explanation of how the House is supposed to pass spending bills before the Senate.

“But they don’t want to do regular order,” Duncan said. “They want to work out all the differences in the front end, then drop this big bill in front of us and say this is all you have a chance to vote on.”

Flores said he has pitched the idea to leadership. But when asked by The Daily Signal, a Ryan aide would say only: “House Republicans continue to work with our Senate colleagues on a continuing resolution.”

The plan didn’t come up during a Republican conference Wednesday morning, however, a source inside the closed-door meeting told The Daily Signal. (For more from the author of “House, Senate Republicans Jockey to Advance Short-Term Spending Measure” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Up to 15 Percent of Noncitizens in US Are Voting, Alleges Expert

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Obama administration opposes states verifying citizenship status of registered voters. Inquiries into voter fraud are typically met with derision from both government and the media—and in at least one instance with prosecution. Prosecutors don’t prioritize voter fraud, while convictions only garner light sentences.

These are among the voter fraud problems facing the United States, experts noted this week, even as prominent voices on the left say such fraud is a myth.

The left’s opposition to voter integrity laws or even inquiry can be simply explained, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

“Why on earth would you not want to make sure that only citizens are registered and voting?” Fitton, author of “Clean House: Exposing Our Government’s Secrets and Lies,” said at a forum at The Heritage Foundation Tuesday. “That to me shows that the Obama administration and the left generally, which is behind this, wants to be able to steal elections if necessary. To me, that’s a crisis.”

A 2014 study by Old Dominion University found that 6.4 percent of all noncitizens voted in the 2008 election and 2.2 percent voted in the 2010 midterm elections. The study concludes this likely put Minnesota Sen. Al Franken, a Democrat, over the top in the race in his 312-vote statewide victory over Republican Norm Coleman in 2008.

Fitton said this is approaching 15 percent of all noncitizens voting.

In the past, opponents have argued that ID requirements hurt minority participation. Meanwhile, studies have found minority voting has increased after voter ID was implemented.

“If you think your vote is going to be stolen, especially in urban areas where you have political machines controlling the voting process or the perception that they control the voting process, you may not bother to vote,” Fitton said. “But, if you think your vote will be counted, of course you’re going to be more likely to turn out.”

Some recent cases cited by the panelists demonstrate the reality of voter fraud.

In August, in St. Louis, a court ordered a do-over in a Democratic primary for a Missouri state legislative seats after finding absentee voter fraud.

Last year in Bridgeport, Connecticut, a state legislator was convicted of voter fraud and given a suspended sentence.

Still, some commentators contend there is no voter fraud problem in the United States. For example, this week a New York Times editorial called voter fraud a “myth” and “fake”:

As study after study has shown, there is virtually no voter fraud anywhere in the country. The most comprehensive investigation to date found that out of one billion votes cast in all American elections between 2000 and 2014, there were 31 possible cases of impersonation fraud. Other violations—like absentee ballot fraud, multiple voting and registration fraud—are also exceedingly rare. So why do so many people continue to believe this falsehood?

Credit for this mass deception goes to Republican lawmakers, who have for years pushed a fake story about voter fraud, and thus the necessity of voter ID laws, in an effort to reduce voting among specific groups of Democratic-leaning voters.

However, it was in New York City where the city’s Department of Investigation (DOI) determined the city’s Board of Elections (BOE) was doing a poor job of preventing ineligible voters from voting. During the 2013 mayor’s race, 63 city investigators went to polling places impersonating someone who was either dead, moved outside the city, or was in jail. Of those, 61 were cleared to vote. The department’s report stated:

The 60 investigators, among other investigative activities, conducted quality assurance surveys of voters at poll sites throughout the five boroughs, logging complaints from 596 of 1,438 voters relating to subjects such as ballot readability, poll workers, and poll site locations. DOI’s operations also revealed that there are names of ineligible voters (e.g. felons and people no longer City residents), and deceased voters, on the BOE voter rolls, some for periods of up to four years.

Accordingly, DOI investigators posing as a number of those ineligible or deceased individuals, were permitted to obtain, mark, and submit ballots in the scanners or in the lever voting booths in 61 cases, with no challenge or question by BOE poll workers. Investigators were turned away in 2 other cases. No votes were cast for any actual candidate or on any proposal during the course of the DOI operation.

Interestingly, the result was not to demand more accountability from the city’s Board of Elections. Rather, the New York City Council voted to prosecute the investigators for impersonating voters, said John Fund, a National Review columnist, previously with The Wall Street Journal, during the panel.

Progressive critics reference the rarity of voter fraud prosecutions as evidence of a “myth.” Fund said it is actually because such cases can be politically disadvantageous to elected district attorneys.

“Most prosecutors run for election. Most prosecutors want to have higher election,” Fund said. “The last thing you want to do is take on voter fraud cases which are highly politicized and infuriate half the people in your community on partisan basis. Judges require incredible standards of proof and often the sentences of the few people who are convicted of voter fraud are community service.”

Maintaining clean voter rolls from ineligible voters is also important and required by law, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow with The Heritage Foundation. And New York isn’t the only place with a problem. In Indiana, 16 counties had more registered voters than voting-age adults based on U.S. Census Bureau data, he said.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, better known as the “Motor Voter Law” allows people to register to vote when they get their driver’s license law. But it also requires local governments to maintain clean voter rolls, which the federal government can enforce. The Obama administration has never enforced this provision, von Spakovsky said at the forum.

“There has been a war being waged against election integrity for the past decade,” von Spakovsky said. “The leader in this has been the U.S. Justice Department. Instead of making sure every voter can vote and that no one’s vote is stolen through fraud, they have been on the other side of that, waging war against any efforts to prove election integrity.” (For more from the author of “Up to 15 Percent of Noncitizens in US Are Voting, Alleges Expert” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Summit Declaration: Use These Principles to Compare Candidates and Platforms

/0 Comments/in , /by

On September 13, some 60 faith leaders gathered in the studios of LIFE Today, to pray together and share their heartfelt concern for the future of the nation. Hosted by The Stream’s publisher James Robison, the summit saw men and women of different denominations and ethnic groups standing in supernatural unity for the preservation of human life, religious freedom, family and marriage, and the importance of engaging in the nation’s electoral process.

Out of this body of believers has come the following declaration:

Summit Declaration

In a critical national election where the two leading candidates are far from perfect, we have come to a stark conclusion: We must set aside non-essentials that are repeated in the media, such as the candidates’ personalities, their off-hand comments, short-term political strategies, and the ups and downs of the news cycles or the polls. Instead, we feel the gentle but firm hand of Providence guiding us to pray and focus on the issues at stake, which could not be more crucial to the common good of our country and the lives of our fellow citizens.

More than two thousand years ago, the Old Testament prophet Micah laid out the criteria we must follow in 2016: He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8) The following is our best attempt to apply Micah’s test to the vital issues of today. We ask all people of faith not to be distracted by the political antics in the media, but to compare the party platforms and their candidates in light of the following principles.

Life

It is a scandalous injustice for our government to allow and enable the killing of the innocent. This was true when many states turned a blind eye to lynching, and it is true now that 50 states allow abortion. The decisions which invented a right to kill the unborn corrupted our nation’s jurisprudence at its root, distorting the “inalienable rights” that our founding documents were meant to protect. Medical science proves the humanity and individuality of the unborn child. Common decency, and a basic acceptance of biblical ethics, demand that Americans act as decisively as they can to erase this stain on our national conscience. We need a president who will identify, appoint, and fight for the confirmation of judges at the Supreme Court and appellate level who reject the falsification of our Constitution on this and other issues. Likewise, we must elect or reelect senators who will vote on judicial nominees based on their fidelity to the Constitution.

Liberty

The Bill of Rights is not a list of helpful suggestions, but the fundamental law of our land, without which the Constitution would never have been ratified. Politicians who promote policies, or appoint judges, with the intent of subverting the clear, expressed intent of the Constitution are guilty of lawlessness, and the very species of tyranny that Americans rebelled to reject. The basic rights protected by these Amendments were not granted by the Constitution or any government, but are part of human nature: They are given us by God as His image bearers on this earth. The rights especially under attack today are the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association and the right of self-defense. Strike at these, and freedom falls.

The Pursuit of Happiness

There are many issues critical to our national well-being that demand of us wisdom and prudent stewardship — qualities that have often been lacking in both political parties. Here are just a few of urgent concern:

Debt

It is neither right nor kind (in Micah’s words) to leave our grandchildren to pay the price (plus compound interest) for our reckless spending. Our legacy to them should not be a debt which they did nothing to incur and won’t be able to pay. Justice demands that we make the hard choices required to live within our means, instead of passing on unbearable debt to the next generation.
Immigration

In a nation of immigrants, today’s newcomers deserve better than to be used as a political football, or viewed cynically as a source of likely votes. They are in fact an important part of our nation’s future, for better or worse, so we must form our policies carefully, in accord with our nation’s sovereignty, safety and values. As Ronald Reagan once said, a country that doesn’t control its own borders isn’t really a country. Immigrants are people made in the image of God and deserve to be given a fair chance when they ask to be accepted into our country, but must also accept it when our considered answer is “no.” We call on government, business and the church to sit at the table of wisdom to apply justice, kindness and humility to this crucial issue.

Racial Division

We deplore the antagonism that is being stoked between ethnic groups. We are all equally Americans whose history includes many triumphs alongside some lingering scars of injustice. We repent for each failure of justice in our past, and commit ourselves to rectifying those whose effects afflict our present. We will continue to reach out across ethnic lines, using especially the links that exist in our churches to learn from each other and deepen our mutual respect and brotherly love.

The Right and Duty to Vote

We are grateful to live in a country where government is of the people, by the people and for the people. If the people don’t get involved, the process will evolve toward the rule of the elite, and maybe even to the rule of one. Because our ancestors fought for our right to be consulted in choosing our leaders, each citizen shares in sovereignty — and will be held responsible by God for how he helped to exercise it. If we slack in that responsibility, we will share the blame allotted to wicked or lazy kings, whose people perished.

The Role of the Church

The Church is the light of truth and the salt that preserves society. We realize that the state of our country now is partly our responsibility. If America is troubled, it means that we have failed to waken it to the principles that could grant it peace and freedom. We commit to doing that more effectively and creatively in the future. We call for all Christians to join us in this work, which begins with holiness in the heart and in the home.

Our Prophetic Burden

Life after the coming election will present a challenge. Americans will be more divided than they were before. Some bitterness will linger. It is imperative that we believe in the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ to change lives and redeem the culture. Our greatest work is ahead of us. Western civilization was built around a narrative that reflects the biblical story of creation, fall, redemption and flourishing. As that narrative has been altered or forgotten, respect for human dignity has deteriorated. The shepherds have scattered and left the sheep lost. To gather people again into the light that reveals their God-given dignity, we must restore the biblical narrative, show how it is more plausible and persuasive than pseudo-scientific theories that reduce men to beasts or pretend that we are gods. This task is the role of the Church and its leaders. As the Apostles did in the equally degraded world of Rome, we must become joyful proclaimers of the Word of God, and God’s revelation of Himself in history, in the person and words of Jesus, and pray fervently for the next great spiritual awakening.

(For more from the author of “Summit Declaration: Use These Principles to Compare Candidates and Platforms” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Islamic Terrorism Is Not a Narrative

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the aftermath of this past weekend’s Islamic terrorist attacks, White House press secretary Josh Earnest commented, “We are in a narrative battle. ISIL want to project the West as being at war with Islam. It’s a mythology. And we’re debunking that myth … We can’t play into this narrative that somehow the United States is fighting Islam.”

In response, conservative journalist Ben Shapiro wrote, “The people in New York weren’t hit by flying pieces of narrative.”

Indeed, Islamic terrorism is not a narrative, and the victims of Islamic terrorism worldwide, now numbering in the millions, have not been beheaded or tortured or raped or blown to pieces or burned alive or imprisoned or exiled by “flying pieces of narrative.”

No, these men, women, and children are the victims of violent people acting on a violent ideology that is a central part of their violent faith, namely, radical Islam. And so, while heads are literally rolling in the Middle East and other parts of the world, Washington elites are sticking their heads in the sand, saying that, “We are in a narrative battle.”

And what, exactly, is that “narrative”?

It is that we are not in a war with Islam, and therefore, if we acknowledge that these terrorists are Muslims or connect them in any way with the word “Islam,” we “play into this narrative that somehow the United States is fighting Islam.”

As Hillary Clinton tweeted out last November, “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Consequently, rather than seeking to understand the mindset of radical Islam and most effectively combat Islamic terrorists, our president and his colleagues categorically deny any connection between Islam and terror to the point that, in 2011, “the White House ordered a cleansing of training materials that Islamic groups deemed offensive.”

So, not only is Islamic terrorism not a narrative, but when it comes to the narrative spoken of by Josh Earnest, namely, that radical Islam is not related to Islam, the terrorists have won here too, with the White House scrubbing the all-important references to Islam from our law enforcement books.

In other words, when it comes to the battle the White House does want to fight, it is on the wrong side of the issue, falsely claiming that Muslim terrorists want America to be at war with Islam in general. Hardly. The fact is, these radical Muslims themselves are at war with other expressions of Islam worldwide.

Instead, these terrorists win the battle when we are convinced that they are not Muslims at all, thereby causing us to fight with one hand tied behind our back and one eye closed (at the least).

Note also that there is a false narrative put forth by the White House and Hillary Clinton, namely, that no Muslims are terrorists, as if the moment a lifelong, devoted Muslim commits an act of terror for the cause of Allah, he or she is now disqualified from being a Muslim.

Based on what Islamic tenet or text?

To the contrary, while a Christian could never behead an unbeliever and say, “Hey, I’m just following Jesus’ example,” a Muslim could commit this same act and say, “Hey, I’m just following Muhammad’s example.”

As for Hillary’s statement that, “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism,” does she mean the Muslims in Iran who hang gays, or the Muslims in Saudi Arabia who behead adulterers, or the Muslims in Pakistan who go on a bloody rampage over charges that a Koran has been defiled, or the Muslims in Afghanistan who prevent women from going to school, or the Muslims in those countries that enforce the death penalty for conversion?

Had she said, “Many Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people,” most of us would have agreed without hesitation. Had she even said, “The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists,” most of us would have agreed with that too.

But her blanket statement, like those of the president and others in the past, is demonstrably false, both ideologically and historically, and it thereby emboldens the terrorists to be more brazen still, since they can more easily fly right under our all too patchy radar.

This brings us back to the reality that the battle with Islamic terrorism is not a battle of narratives, and I can assure you that a Yazidi family in Iraq mourning over the gang rape of their young daughter or a Christian family in Syria mourning over the decapitation of all their males is not wondering about the “narrative,” and thinking, “I sure hope America doesn’t blame all Muslims for this.”

Instead, they are wondering why the West is so slow to recognize the very real threat of radical Islam, and they would be shocked to know that, rather than declare war on Islamic terrorists, the president of the most powerful nation in the world is doing damage control for Islam.

What a narrative. (For more from the author of “Islamic Terrorism Is Not a Narrative” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Harry Reid’s Senate Tirade Against Trump Looks Like Another Violation of Senate Ethics Rules

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last week, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) went on a tirade on the Senate floor blasting Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. He referred to him as a “spoiled brat,” “a con artist” and a “human leech who will bleed the country.”

His speech likely violated Senate ethics rules. Members of both the Senate and the House are prohibited from conducting political campaign activity in a federal building. The applicable ethics rule states, “The General Appropriations statute, 31 U.S.C § 1301, provides that official funds are to be used only for the purposes for which they were appropriated. No official resources may be used to conduct campaign activities.”

This wouldn’t be the first time Reid has attacked the Republican presidential nominee from the Senate floor right before the election. In 2012, he accused Mitt Romney in a speech of not paying taxes for most of the past 12 years, and directly addressed his campaign for president, “This week we learned Mitt Romney only wants to be president of half of the United States. If Mitt Romney were president, he wouldn’t waste time worrying about the 47 percent of Americans who he believes are victims, who Romney believes are unwilling to take personal responsibility.”

A senior Senate Republican aide told The Hill, “He’s campaigning on the Senate floor. It’s the taxpayer-funded Senate floor. The speech had nothing to do with the Senate. It was a pure campaign speech. You couldn’t give it in the rotunda. You couldn’t give it in my office. It’s a taxpayer-funded building.” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) piled on after Reid’s speech, continuing the criticism of Romney.

Selective enforcement

Unfortunately, no one seems willing to enforce this ethics rule when it comes to members of Congress. According to The Hill, the ethics rules have been narrowly “interpreted as a ban on receiving or soliciting campaign contributions in Senate buildings,” ignoring the overall prohibition against campaigning generally. Yet they aren’t even the same statute. While 31 U.S.C § 1301 generally prohibits political campaign activities, 18 U.S.C § 607 specifically prohibits soliciting campaign funds on federal property. There is also another narrow ethics rule that is enforced, a prohibition on using video of congressional proceedings in a campaign video. Consequently, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was found to have violated this rule, and he took down the offending video.

The laws appear to be selectively enforced — against underlings not so fortunate to be members of Congress. Federal employees and appointees of the executive branch have similar restrictions under the Hatch Act, which prohibits them from engaging in partisan political activity on federal property or while on duty. The Office of Special Counsel found in July that Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro violated the Hatch Act when he promoted Hillary Clinton for president during an interview with Katie Couric in April. He was considered to be on Clinton’s short list for a possible presidential running mate at the time, and he even said on air that his statement was made in his personal capacity, but it didn’t matter.

If allowed to continue, Reid’s speeches against Trump will no doubt influence the election. A powerful Senate majority leader using his bully pulpit to denounce the presidential candidate, which is broadcast on C-SPAN and repeated throughout the news, will carry significant weight with American voters — the precise thing the Hatch Act and congressional ethics rules were drafted to prohibit.

Time for an investigation

Senator Reid should not be above the law. Castro’s actions were far less egregious than Reid’s, yet he was found in violation of the Hatch Act while almost no one other than Megyn Kelly of Fox News has questioned the propriety of Reid’s speeches. It is long overdue for Congress to start policing itself, instead of protecting fellow members in some kind of good old boys’ club. This contributes to why Americans have such a low approval rating of Congress. There needs to be an investigation by the Senate Rules Committee into Reid’s speeches and he must be prohibited from making any more campaign speeches against Trump prior to the election. Otherwise, what’s to stop Republican members of Congress from giving speeches against Hillary Clinton? Clinton would be wise to condemn Reid’s actions. (For more from the author of “Harry Reid’s Senate Tirade Against Trump Looks Like Another Violation of Senate Ethics Rules” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.