The Left’s Decivilization Agenda Comes to Ohio

If a person can become transgender, why can’t a state or another branch of government become trans-judicial?

Our Founders never envisioned that states would remain obsequious to judicial power grabs. But they could never have anticipated, in their wildest nightmares, a day when federal judges would require states to treat boys like girls. Yet, that is exactly what happened in Ohio when Judge Algenon Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ordered Highland Local School District to treat a boy who thinks he’s a girl “as the girl she is”!

Just like North Carolina, Ohio can’t seem to catch a break from the tentacles of the radical courts. Last week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals prevented Ohio’s Secretary of State from cleaning its voter registration lists of dead voters. Now a district judge is ordering a school district outside of Akron to treat a boy in Highland Elementary School like a girl for all official school business.

After the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights, prompted by a complaint from the boy’s family, ordered the school district to allow him in female bathrooms and locker rooms, the school officials sued the DOE in federal court for grossly misinterpreting the 1972 Title IX statute as absurdly applying to those suffering from transgender illness. Threatened with the loss of $1 million in Title IX funding, the school district argued that they already went out of their way to accommodate that individual student by allowing him to use a bathroom in the school office. But the parents argued that the boy, who they say had previously attempted suicide, would suffer mental health breakdowns from such an accommodation.

In Monday’s order, Judge Marbley, a Clinton appointee, required the Highland Local School District to allow the child (absurdly referred to as “Jane Doe”) into the girl’s bathrooms and locker rooms. “The Court orders School District officials to treat Jane Doe as the girl she is, including referring to her by female pronouns and her female name and allowing her to use the girls’ restroom at Highland Elementary School,” wrote an irate Judge Marbley.

The judge went on a mind-blowing polemic about how … you guessed it … the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment likely protects this individual and creates a right to use the opposite gender’s bathroom. “[A]s a tiny minority of the population, whose members are stigmatized for their gender non-conformity in a variety of settings, transgender people are a politically powerless minority group.”

Sadly, this is no April Fool’s joke. The unelected judges and bureaucrats at the DOE are using a 1972 statute and an 1868 amendment that was designed to stop real discrimination against fundamental rights to codify the most absurd distortion of natural law — the very source of fundamental rights.

There is no end to the absurdity of this de-civilization agenda. There are all sorts of unfortunate mental disorders in the world that deserve treatment and compassion from the society. But nobody would ever suggest that we codify the hallucinatory behavior of those stricken with the disorders into practice, law, the Constitution, and inalienable rights. What if a schizophrenic student who legitimately exhibited suicidal behavior demanded to be treated as a killer whale and asked for the school district to allow him to sit in a water tank during class? Or what if the student demanded to be referred to as “it” in all documentation? Would this stigmatized super-minority not be entitled to the same degree of “privacy” and “equal protection?”

The Ohio case is a quintessential example when states must simply say no and refuse to comply with the most ludicrous debasements of fundamental rights and the worst usurpations of power by the two unelected branches of the federal government. Even the elected branch of the federal government could never order a state to engage in such absurdity. How can the DOE and the courts be taken seriously for a minute?

Folks, we are like frogs in boiling water who become desensitized to the sharp increase in the temperature of cultural licentiousness. Even those on our side are beginning to adopt much of the Left’s premise and use the absurd and illogical parlance about sexual identity mental disorders. What is it going to take to arouse the states and the people from their slumber as the federal judiciary initiates the most outrageous societal transformation imaginable? Why are the federally elected representative of states like Ohio and North Carolina not fighting to defund the DOE transgender mandate in the budget bill? Why are they not countering the stolen sovereignty from the courts with congressional powers?

It’s time for a new Tea Party, a new movement within the states to fight back against judicial and executive reach. After all, if a boy with male plumbing can be deemed a girl, why can’t a state self-identify as a Supreme Court and control its own destiny? (For more from the author of “The Left’s Decivilization Agenda Comes to Ohio” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

James Comey Promises FBI Database to Track Race-Based Police Activity

Never let a serious crisis go to waste, goes the old axiom. And in the context of America’s ongoing tension regarding race and policing, it would appear that the crisis has provided a ripe opportunity to further centralize policing in the United States by mining data from state and local law enforcement agencies.

At a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey promised a panel of senators that he would spend the remaining seven years of his 10-year term to build a national database to monitor the role of race in use of force by police across the country.

“We simply must collect data that is reliable nationwide about police use of deadly force in altercations, encounters, with civilians,” Comey said, in an exchange with Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., (F, 11%). “If there is anything more inherently governmental than that, I can’t imagine what it is.”

During the hearing, Comey said that the need for the database is due to the fact that the only available information that the public has about policing incidents and the use of force comes from newspapers, whose “data isn’t comprehensive”:

“We will build a nationwide database that the FBI will collect that shows us what happened, when, who was involved, what were they like, what were the circumstances so we can have informed conversations.”

Furthermore, this is a project that Comey said could span through the next two presidential administrations.

“We are going to do this,” the FBI director continued, “One of the beauties of a 10-year term is I am not going to shut up about this. I have seven years to go.”

Ultimately, the goal of James Comey’s proposed policing data project would be to definitively answer questions about whether or not deadly force is applied disproportionately against minorities by police, he says:

“No one in this country knows whether the use of deadly force against any particular group — African-Americans most particularly — is up, down, or sideways over the last 10 years,” Comey told the committee. “Do we have an epidemic of violence? No one knows that. We could, we might not — we simply must gather the information so we can care deeply and solve these problems.”

James Comey’s testimony does sound good at first blush. And had the director’s reputation as an impartial arbiter of the law not been botched over the summer by the bureau’s handling of the Clinton email scandal investigation, there might even be a greater danger of congressmen joining hands to slap the all-powerful “bipartisan” label on this effort and push it forward in the name of “transparency.”

While the narrative of police disproportionately and indiscriminately gunning down unarmed black men is a popular one — and individual incidents generate easy, eye-grabbing headlines for media outlets — the statistics currently available would say otherwise.

A 2015 Washington Post study of police shootings — one of the newspaper pieces that Comey disparaged in the hearing — revealed that incidents of white law enforcement officers shooting unarmed black men accounted for less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings. Furthermore, multiple criminology studies have found that police were actually more hesitant to shoot black suspects who posed a credible threat (versus white suspects).

Giving the FBI and Department of Justice a federally-mandated periscope to look over the shoulder of every beat cop in the country will likely only exacerbate the phenomenon and put more police lives in danger by forcing them to second-guess themselves every time a suspect poses a credible threat.

While this might be an adequate diagnosis of the problem that popular racial policing narrative is, at best, poorly-informed, Comey’s solution is just another means of contributing to the Obama administration’s years-long efforts to centralize everyday policing in the United States.

Past proposals include the president’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, and the host of grants that serve as dangling carrots for local law enforcement to hand over more authority to the feds in exchange for funds.

Contrary to the “Hope and Change” narrative that the president sold voters, the Obama years have seen an unquestionable resurgence in racial tension in the United States. And this tension has been used as excuse at nearly every single instance as a vehicle to increase federal oversight and control over law enforcement — which, by nature, should be a local undertaking.

While James Comey’s FBI database may seem like a benign solution to questions about racial impetus in police shootings, it has to be viewed as part of a greater pattern to increase the DOJ’s presence over local law enforcement. (For more from the author of “James Comey Promises FBI Database to Track Race-Based Police Activity” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

GOP Lawmakers Pressure Administration Over Obamacare ‘Bailout’ for Insurers

GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate are pressuring the Obama administration for additional information on whether it plans to settle with insurance companies suing the government over a program written into Obamacare, which they warn would serve as a “multibillion dollar bailout” of those insurers.

Republicans in the House and Senate sent separate letters to top officials with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Justice, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services raising concerns over the possibility of the Justice Department tapping into the Judgment Fund to settle lawsuits filed by insurance companies over Obamacare’s risk corridor program.

The risk corridor program was written into the Affordable Care Act and designed to provide insurers with stability during the first few years of the law’s implementation.

“This program was originally intended to be implemented in a budget neutral manner,” Republican Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming, Mike Lee of Utah, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Ben Sasse of Nebraska wrote in a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell, and Acting Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Andy Slavitt.

“This intention was confirmed when Congress passed, with presidential approval, two separate provisions of appropriations law confirming its budget neutrality,” the letter continued. “It now appears the administration is preparing to circumvent these actions.”

The Republican senators said they have “grave concerns” about the potential for settlements with insurers.

Insurance companies filed lawsuits earlier this year after learning they would receive a small fraction of the money requested from the risk corridor program.

But Rubio and Senate Republicans included an amendment in 2015 and 2016 government spending bills prohibiting the government from using any taxpayer dollars to fund payments requested by insurers through the program. Under Rubio’s provision, the federal government could only use money collected from insurers to make those payments.

Because of those restrictions, insurance companies participating in Obamacare’s exchanges received just 12.6 percent of the money they intended to get from the risk corridor program—a collective $2.5 billion less than originally anticipated.

Many smaller insurers, including at least four of 23 consumer operated and oriented plans, ended up closing their doors because of lower-than-expected risk corridor payments.

Congressional Republicans began to sound the alarm over use of the Judgment Fund after insurers filed the lawsuit. Settling with insurers, they warned, would give the White House a way to provide the companies with their full risk corridor payments, effectively circumventing Congress.

“Any attempt to settle these cases out of court as a backdoor way to direct taxpayer dollars to insurance companies through the Judgment Fund will be met with the strictest scrutiny from Congress,” more than 40 GOP lawmakers wrote in one of the letters, sent to Burwell last week.

The Republicans go on to signal they would be willing to file their own lawsuit against the administration.

“Should the administration seek to make settlements in any pending lawsuit regarding risk corridor payments, we remain committed to exhausting all legislative and judicial options to ensure the power of the purse vested in Congress under the Constitution is respected and maintained,” the letter continues.

Republicans further stepped up their pressure on the Obama administration regarding potential use of the Judgment Fund following the release of a Sept. 9 memo from the Department of Health and Human Services on risk corridor payments for the 2015 benefit year.

In its memo, the agency addressed the lawsuit filed by insurers over the risk corridor payments for 2014 and said it would be “open to discussing resolution of those claims.”

Then, in a hearing before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee earlier this month, Slavitt indicated officials from his agency had discussed with the Justice Department a potential settlement with insurers over the risk corridor program.

Nicole Navas, spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said the agency declines to comment because of pending litigation.

Health Republic Insurance of Oregon, a co-op, filed the first lawsuit against the Obama administration over the risk corridor program in February. The nonprofit is seeking class-action status.

Highmark Inc. and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina followed, filing their own individual lawsuits in May and June, respectively.

The insurers allege that the federal government violated the Affordable Care Act and the risk corridor payment obligations outlined in the health care law.

Though the Obama administration has signaled it would be willing to use the Judgment Fund to settle insurers lawsuits against the government, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service issued two separate memorandums to Rubio and Barrasso on the legality of the use of the Judgment Fund.

In a memo sent to Rubio in January, the Congressional Research Service said the administration wouldn’t be able to use the Judgment Fund to award payments to insurers who filed suit.

Congress, the memo concluded, would have to appropriate additional funds for “any payment to satisfy a judgment secured by plaintiffs seeking recovery of amounts owed under the risk corridors program.”

In a separate memo to Barrasso, the Congressional Research Service said that even if the insurance companies won their case, either insurers would need to pay additional money into the risk corridor program or Congress would need to appropriate additional money for companies involved in the litigation to recover additional funds.

“Consequently, it would be inappropriate for the Judgment Fund to be used to settle any litigation stemming from the risk corridor program,” the letter from Barrasso, Lee, Rubio, and Sasse continues. (For more from the author of “GOP Lawmakers Pressure Administration Over Obamacare ‘Bailout’ for Insurers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary’s Sickening Gun Control Fetish Exposed

At last night’s debate, there was one issue that Hillary Clinton really exposed herself on: gun control. With her talk of the “no fly list,” discussion of a “gun epidemic,” and a “plague of gun violence,” it became evident that Hillary has many ideas of how to impose comprehensive gun control.

According to the Washington Post transcript of the first presidential debate, Hillary said of guns:

The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death of young African-American men, more than the next nine causes put together. So we have to do two things, as I said. We have to restore trust. We have to work with the police. We have to make sure they respect the communities and the communities respect them. And we have to tackle the plague of gun violence, which is a big contributor to a lot of the problems that we’re seeing today.

The term “epidemic” and “plague” are medical terms used to describe illnesses. This is language intended to communicate the idea that gun violence is a health problem like cancer or the Zika virus. When one makes the ownership of guns akin to a sickness, it becomes easier to sell the American people the idea of mandatory gun confiscation.

Violence isn’t caused by guns, it is caused by people with guns, and knives and bombs. An issue that receives far less attention is the fact the violence is a societal problem made worse by rampant glorification in movies, cable shows, music, and violent video games. In other words, guns are not the problem. The people holding the guns are the problem because we, as a society, have been desensitized to violence through entertainment that glorifies violence.

Movies like Hostel to Reservoir Dogs to Natural Born Killers all glorify violence and make it acceptable to see death. Video games like Grand Theft Auto and the many military style games teach kids how to kill and allow kids to go on killing rampages. Violence in entertainment impacts the attitudes of people towards real life situations.

No liberal would dare to call these movies and video games an “epidemic” or a “plague” because that might lead to a chipping away of what many consider a First Amendment right. Yet, no similar treatment is given to the Second Amendment that resides in that same Bill of Rights.

According to the Washington Post transcript, Hillary argued:

And I believe strongly that commonsense gun safety measures would assist us. Right now — and this is something Donald has supported, along with the gun lobby — right now, we’ve got too many military- style weapons on the streets. In a lot of places, our police are outgunned. We need comprehensive background checks, and we need to keep guns out of the hands of those who will do harm.

Here Hillary called for a widespread gun confiscation, the closing of gun shows, and ending face-to-face sales of guns by requiring background checks on private sales. Hillary is an anti-gun extremist who does not respect the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

Clinton closed that segment with a false equivalency:

And we finally need to pass a prohibition on anyone who’s on the terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun in our country. If you’re too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. So there are things we can do, and we ought to do it in a bipartisan way.

Trump, along with the NRA, supports the idea of imposing some due process when somebody is pinged as being on a watch list so they can challenge the removal of the right to purchase a gun. The NRA position is that if somebody tries to purchase a gun and they are on the “no fly list” then they have the opportunity to go into court and challenge the action.

Hillary supports legislation that process rights from those that end up, intentionally or unintentionally, on the no fly list. Trump and Clinton do not support the same idea on how to treat individuals who are on the “no fly list” who try to purchase a gun, because Hillary does not support due process protections in the legislation being supported by Trump, the NRA, and other Republicans.

The noise of “who won and who lost the debate,” Obama’s birth certificate, Trump’s tax returns, and Rosie O’Donnell don’t really matter to most voters. Having their guns confiscated and does matter.

On the issue of guns, Hillary lost the debate with Donald Trump. (For more from the author of “Hillary’s Sickening Gun Control Fetish Exposed” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fake Food Fight: A Debate That Reflects Our Political System

Last night’s debate was a reflection of the Kim Kardashian culture and the fake two-party system that has destroyed our Constitution.

There were sharp rhetorical barbs tossed at one another in this reality TV show, but over what exactly did they debate? Where was the major point of contention on the actual issues that matter?

For all of the talk about how this election is so new, exciting, and consequential, this debate merely reflected a typical day in Washington. Harry Reid, D-Nev. (F, 2%) and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 42%) toss rhetorical barbs at one another every day, but they fundamentally agree on so many issues. They engage in confrontation just to entertain the political class with a fake WWE-style bout.

Many of us have been pining for years to watch a general election debate in which the GOP candidate would deracinate the entire premise of socialism and pin the high cost of living, loss of jobs, and lethargic growth on the Democrats’ liberal policies. Yet, the beginning of the first presidential debate was an astounding display of “me too” socialism whereby Trump made his entire plan for economic growth centered around protectionism. Even if one subscribes to some degree of protectionism, the notion that this is a proactive tool for growth is absurd. Trump didn’t pitch his tax plan until Hillary brought it up and when she did, Trump spent more time focusing on “preventing” companies from leaving the country — whatever that means.

Trump got back on message for a few minutes when he finally defended his tax plan and spoke about onerous regulations. But fundamentally, the economic side of this debate sounded more one-sided than any presidential debate in memory, and that includes the debates with liberals like John McCain, R-Ariz. (F, 34%) and Bob Dole. It was further astounding that Trump did not mention the 800-pound gorilla on fiscal policy —Obamacare —a single time. Then again, for someone who loves expansion of Medicaid, it’s hard to articulate what exactly is wrong with Obama’s signature legislation.

The most disappointing part of the debate was when Trump enthusiastically agreed with Hillary on universal child care and maternity leave. Trump uttered a line that embodies the pale-pastel nature of the oligarchy since 1988. He asserted that while he agrees with Hillary’s program, they “probably disagree a little bit as to numbers and amounts.”

Freeze frame right there.

This is the perfect summation of the GOP since 1988, excepting for the brief aberration of the 1995 House Republicans. They agree with whatever Democrats are doing at any given time, albeit disagree over the numbers and amounts. Trump should have retorted by listing all of the Democrat policies that make it impossible for women to stay home with their children if they choose to do so because the cost of living through socialism forces both parents to work every year of their lives. Of the 14 winning issues we’ve outlined, he barely touched on a few of them and none of them in a meaningful way.

Somehow Donald Trump managed to (finally) hit Hillary on the debt, but never explained how he will end deficit spending given that he will not repeal a single program, will continue to add programs, and sign a massive stimulus bill on infrastructure projects, an idea that should be pursued by state governments.

When Hillary asserted that Trump referred to global warming as a hoax, instead of embracing the opportunity to discuss how this hoax is decimating the economy in swing states, he retreated by denying he ever said it. I think we all remember a candidate in the primary who would have relished a debate over global warming.

And while fiscal conservatism was dead in this debate, social conservatism — even social libertarianism, private property rights, religious liberty, and inalienable rights — never made an appearance.

But most of the debate wasn’t about issues — liberal or otherwise. To debate moderator Lester Holt’s credit, he let the candidates banter back and forth for most of the debate — you might even call it a debate for once. But that is the point. Given the nature of these two candidates — a tired, old Great Society culture warrior at one podium and her donor at the other — the meat of the debate was about personality. At the beginning, it was Trump’s personality who knocked Hillary off her game, but over time Hillary engaged in jujitsu by leading Trump into his own rabbit holes and in a defensive posture about his personal life and prior statements.

We already know Trump is a social and fiscal liberal on many issues, but the one saving grace has long been his strong views on immigration and national security. Yet, when given a fast-ball up the plate to talk about his solution to homegrown terror, Trump didn’t mention immigration or the Muslim Brotherhood once or body slam Hillary for increasing refugees by 550 percent. Rather, he went off on a tangent about NATO, got caught on his past statements on Iraq, and was ensnared in a lengthy discussion about birtherism.

When Hillary brought up the issue of gun control and the terror watch list, Trump could have destroyed her on bringing in assault people while foolishly focusing on the inanimate object. He could have exposed her hypocrisy of confiscating guns from innocent people on the list (a prominent journalist wound up on the list) while vigorously clamoring to let violent gun felons out of jail. He could have demonstrated how Hillary wants to go after guns without due process but opposes stripping individuals of citizenship after being convicted through due process of joining a terror group. Instead, he chose the age-old milquetoast GOP approach, the same strategy he employs on so many fiscal issues; he “strongly” agreed with Hillary, thereby throwing the NRA under the bus.

The one area of strength for Trump, however, was the discussion on law and order and how Hillary’s pro criminal policies will hurt inner cities. Trump was also on message when discussing Hillary’s failures in the Middle East, but that line of attack was overshadowed when he got trapped in his past statements on Iraq and his support for the Libya intervention. Furthermore, his answer to the question on nuclear weapons and North Korea was literally incomprehensible…as in weapons-grade stupid.

I couldn’t help but reflect with sorrow of how 52 years after Phyllis Schlafly called for “a choice, not an echo” in our political system. Today, we still hear the faint echo on policy from Republicans — yes, even this new and exciting one — drowned out by the raucous noise of the personal insults. When you strip away the WWE smack-down, there is no choice there.

For those who still desire to beat Hillary at all costs, I don’t blame you. But don’t kid yourselves: if Trump wins on November 8, the work would have only begun. We will have his incoherent luggage piled on top of the existing GOP establishment, which is more empowered than ever before. Blindly cheering everything we fought against for years – without immediately charting a new path for conservatism – won’t end well.

Until Americans return to the values that made this country great in the first place and seize the monopoly away from the oligarchy, we will continue to get the same failed leadership and the same indistinguishable choices every four years. And we deserve it. (For more from the author of “Fake Food Fight: A Debate That Reflects Our Political System” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

NEW STAFFER DETAILS: Docs Reveal Role of ‘Confidential’ Clinton Aide

When Romanian hacker “Guccifer” breached Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal’s email account in 2013, it set off an explosive chain of events among a tight circle of Clinton family aides – including one “confidential assistant” whose extensive role in managing some of the former secretary’s mobile devices and computer security requests is only now becoming clear.

The details were contained in the latest document dump of FBI files on Clinton’s personal email use. The FBI chose late Friday afternoon to release nearly 200 highly redacted pages of so-called “302” files from the bureau’s investigation, a release that quickly became overshadowed by the impending presidential debate Monday.

But the files included new details of the tech intervention by Clinton aide Huma Abedin and Clinton Foundation official Justin Cooper – and a third individual, a Hillary Clinton aide named Monica Hanley.

Hanley was interviewed twice by the FBI, on Jan. 11 and June 23. Working for Hillary Clinton as a “confidential assistant,” Hanley joined the State Department in 2009 as Hillary Clinton began her job as secretary of state. Previously, the 35-year-old worked as an intern for Clinton while she served as a U.S. senator for New York.

In the released documents, Hanley emerged as the go-to staffer often tasked with finding replacements to satisfy Clinton’s chosen use of non-secure BlackBerries. Hanley stated she tried to find BlackBerries for sale on eBay and admitted that she made a trip to a mall in Virginia to try to find devices for sale. (Read more from “NEW STAFFER DETAILS: Docs Reveal Role of ‘Confidential’ Clinton Aide” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Could Be First Modern President to Serve Two Full Terms and Have Only One Veto Overridden

President Barack Obama could likely face his first veto override of his presidency this week—which will probably also be the last given his pending exit in January 2017.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, generally referred to as the 9/11 bill, will return to the Senate Wednesday and to the House as early as Thursday for an override vote before lawmakers take another pre-election recess.

It was the rare bipartisan piece of legislation that met a presidential veto last Friday. The bill grants families of 9/11 victims the right to sue Saudi Arabia for any role the monarchy might have played in the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The last president to have only one veto overridden was President George H.W. Bush, who served one term from 1989 through 1993. For Obama’s two immediate predecessors, Congress mustered up the needed two-thirds majority twice to override Bill Clinton’s vetoes and four times to override George W. Bush’s vetoes.

Obama could become the first president to serve two full terms with just a single veto overridden, according to numbers tracked by the U.S. Senate, although some two-term presidents had zero vetoes overriden.

Vetoes themselves are tied heavily to political circumstances, said Sarah Binder, a political science professor at George Washington University.

“The pattern for vetoes and veto overrides is a pattern less about the president and his leadership ability than it is tied to the congressional partisanship of the time,” Binder told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “Vetoes are unusual when you have unified party control, which the president had for his first two years, and the Democrats controlled the Senate for the first six years. So, any bills that passed the House, such as a repeal of Obamacare, were stopped in the Senate. Split control makes it less likely the president will cast a veto.”

Up to this point, Obama was the first president since Lyndon B. Johnson to have zero vetoes overridden. Johnson’s predecessor, John F. Kennedy, also had no vetoes overridden.

The first nine U.S. presidents didn’t have a single veto overridden. Vetoes were somewhat less common in in the early days, as Thomas Jefferson issued zero during his two first terms. James Madison issued seven vetoes and James Monroe issued one veto.

Andrew Jackson was the first to regularly veto bills, issuing 12 over his two terms in office from 1829 to 1837, and Congress didn’t overturn any.

Other presidents to have zero vetoes overturned were Warren Harding, who served from 1821 until his death in 1823; William McKinley, elected in 1896 and assassinated during the first year of his second term; Abraham Lincoln, elected in 1865, also murdered in the first year of his second term; and Lincoln’s predecessor James Buchanan, who served a single term. Other one-term presidents, James Polk and Martin Van Buren, also had zero veto overrides.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Obama is very sympathetic to the 9/11 families. But, he said such legislation could expose Americans to lawsuits around the world in international courts.

“Carving out exceptions to sovereign immunity puts the United States at greater risk than any other country in the world by virtue of the fact that we are more engaged around the globe than any other country in the world,” Earnest said Tuesday during the White House press briefing. “That’s the concern the president has. … It’s the president’s responsibility to consider the broader impact that this bill, as it’s currently written, would have on our national security and standing around the world and on our diplomats and service members who represent America around the world.”

Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., co-sponsored the legislation. Cornyn said he looked forward to overriding the veto to “send a clear message that we will not tolerate those who finance terrorism in the United States.”

“It’s disappointing the president chose to veto legislation unanimously passed by Congress and overwhelmingly supported by the American people,” Cornyn said in a statement. “Even more disappointing is the president’s refusal to listen to the families of the victims taken from us on Sept. 11, who should have the chance to hold those behind the deadliest terrorist attack in American history accountable.”

The scarce number of veto overrides is less astounding when considering the comparatively few vetoes. Obama, and his predecessor George W. Bush, each cast a dozen vetoes, and both maintained at least one house of Congress for the first six years of their presidency. In contrast, the previous two-term presidents, Clinton and Ronald Reagan, had 37 vetoes and had 78 vetoes respectively. Clinton had a Democratic Congress for his first two years. Reagan, who had a Republican Senate for his first six years, had nine of his vetoes overridden by Congress.

Even the last two single-termers used the veto pen far more often. George H.W. Bush vetoed 44 bills from a Democratic Congress. Jimmy Carter actually vetoed 31 bills in a Congress controlled by his own party, only two of which were overridden.

Further, the successive presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower produced more than 1,000 vetoes. Roosevelt, elected to four terms and serving the entirety of three, vetoed 635 bills, and Congress overturned nine. Truman vetoed 250 bills and Congress reversed 12. Eisenhower vetoed 181 bills and Congress only vetoed two.

It isn’t entirely surprising that a veto override would come at this juncture in Obama’s term, Binder added.

“Normally, enough Democrats would stick with the president to prevent a two-thirds majority, but in this case, they might not want to be on the unpopular side of a vote,” Binder said. “When the issue is framed as either standing with 9/11 families or standing with the Obama administration, Democratic members will be hard-pressed to stand with the Obama administration.”

Other presidents with just one veto overridden are John Tyler, who served from 1841 to 1845; Rutherford B. Hayes, who served a single term from 1877 to 1881; Chester A. Arthur, who served from 1881 through 1885; Benjamin Harrison, who served a single term from 1889 to 1893; Theodore Roosevelt, who fulfilled one president’s term and won another in his own right serving from 1901 through 1909; William Howard Taft, who served one term from 1909 to 1913; and the first President Bush.

Having just one discarded veto likely doesn’t speak to Obama’s legacy, said Tim Hagle, a political science professor at the University of Iowa.

“The difference under Obama, and it really started under Bush, is we’ve seen minorities in the Senate blocking a lot of legislation,” Hagle told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “It’s a nice trick to accuse a do-nothing Congress when nothing gets done, but it’s not a great sign of Obama’s leadership.”

In the final weeks of a national election, the veto override comes at an interesting time, said Gary Rose, the chairman of the political science department at Sacred Heart University, noting Obama’s approval rating is higher than it has been in years.

“It’s unusual for a president to have his veto overridden when his approval rating is actually strong, but this demonstrates that members of Congress are looking ahead to their own re-election and are ready to move on and distance themselves from the president,” Rose said in a phone interview. (For more from the author of “Obama Could Be First Modern President to Serve Two Full Terms and Have Only One Veto Overridden” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Cruz, Lee Step up Claims That Justice Department Isn’t Doing Enough to Protect Churches

Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah are pressing their case that the Department of Justice favors abortion clinics over churches, demanding that the law enforcement agency take steps to ensure “the rights of all American citizens”—not just some—are protected.

In a letter sent Tuesday, obtained first by The Daily Signal, Cruz and Lee criticize the Justice Department’s enforcement of a 1994 law. The intent of the law was to prohibit the use or threat of force and physical obstruction outside abortion clinics, guaranteeing safe access to such facilities.

Before passing the legislation, called the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, lawmakers extended the protections to apply to places of worship.

In their letter, addressed to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Cruz and Lee accuse the Justice Department of a double standard in enforcing the law. They argue that while the agency has pursued more than two dozen cases involving actions to safeguard access to abortion clinics, the agency hasn’t pursued a single case involving churches and other places of worship.

This is the second letter Cruz and Lee have sent to the Justice Department concerning the FACE Act. They sent the first March 16.

The Justice Department responded to Cruz and Lee in June, arguing the reason it has not used the FACE Act to protect religious liberty is because other statutes that are “broader in scope” already enable them to do so.

The FACE Act allows people to protest peacefully, and exercise their First Amendment rights outside abortion clinics and places of worship. However, if those demonstrations turn violent, they could face civil or criminal charges.

Since January 2009, the Justice Department has listed 25 cases it pursued under the FACE Act that involved access to women’s health clinics, some of which performed abortions.

In the response to Cruz and Lee, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik wrote:

With respect to the protection of religious freedom, the department has prosecuted dozens of cases of violence directed at houses of worship and interference with the free exercise of religion under 18 U.S.C. 247, a statute that is broader in scope than the FACE Act.

According to the Justice Department, that statute “prohibits anyone from intentionally defacing, damaging or destroying any religious real property because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with the property.”

As a result, the Justice Department “has not filed any criminal or civil actions under the FACE Act in this enforcement area,” Kadzik said, citing several cases involving religious freedom that the agency pursued.

In one case, Jedediah Stout “pleaded guilty to the arson of a mosque and two attempted arsons of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Joplin, Missouri,” Kadzik wrote.

Another was the well-publicized mass murder June 17, 2015, at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Dylann Roof, now 22, was charged with “killing and attempting to kill African-American parishioners … because of their race and in order to interfere with their exercise of their religion.”

But Cruz and Lee weren’t satisfied with the Justice Department’s argument. They responded with the detailed letter to Lynch, dated Tuesday, arguing that the FACE Act “clearly offers broader protections than 247, which greatly undermines the DOJ’s rationale for not using FACE.”

“But even this somewhat misses the point,” the Republican senators add. “FACE is the law. It is not the DOJ’s prerogative to decide which laws merit enforcement and which ones merit no enforcement at all.”

By way of example, Cruz and Lee accuse the Justice Department of taking a pass on an instance in Los Angeles involving accusations involving a massive protest against Mormons for the church’s support of the ballot question known as Proposition 8. Voters eventually approved the measure, which overturned a California Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage by upholding the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

A news clip, Cruz and Lee write, “shows ‘more than a thousand’ angry protesters chanting hateful slogans and blocking the entrance of the Los Angeles Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

“Demonstrations like this,” they add, “were part of a larger campaign of intimidation and harassment carried out against the Mormon Church for its support of California’s Proposition 8.”

Cruz and Lee write:

This campaign of hate was covered extensively by the press; for example, stories ran in major newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, and on national news networks like CNN and CBS. The DOJ’s explanation for its inaction on this issue, that the matter ‘had not previously been brought to our attention,’ simply lacks credibility.

“In short, it would appear the DOJ’s process for tracking violations of religious liberty is either woefully inadequate or purposefully biased.”

In their letter, the senators ask the Justice Department to answer a series of follow-up questions and “respond to several inquiries made in our March letter that have gone unanswered.”

“The information we ask for is necessary to carry out our duty to conduct oversight of the DOJ, and to determine whether the DOJ is doing everything it can to protect the rights of all American citizens,” they write. (For more from the author of “Cruz, Lee Step up Claims That Justice Department Isn’t Doing Enough to Protect Churches” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The State of Tax Reform in 2016

Tax reform remains a central issue in Washington because of its overwhelming necessity.

Tax reform is badly needed to revive the slow-growing economy and increase job creation and wages for American families. The current tax system is a large weight holding the economy back from growing as strongly as it could, thereby suppressing opportunity for Americans at all income levels.

To free the economy to grow larger, tax reform must lower marginal tax rates for families, businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs. Lower rates would increase their incentives for working, saving, investing, and taking risks.

These activities are the basic elements of economic growth. When more of them occur, the economy grows faster.

The right kind of tax reform also would need to eliminate the multiple layers of tax on saving and investment. The current system applies these multiple layers, raising the marginal tax rate on these economically crucial activities and consequently stunting job creation and wage growth.

Lastly, tax reform should make sure the tax code does not pick winners and losers in the marketplace.

The business side of the tax code is most badly in need of repair. The U.S. has the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, as defined by the countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The U.S. is also one of only a few countries that taxes its businesses on their foreign income. Under the tax code’s cumbersome system of depreciation, businesses must deduct the cost of capital over many years.

Tax reform would need to abandon worldwide taxation and move to a territorial system of taxing only businesses on the income they earn domestically. It also would need to allow businesses to fully deduct, or expense, the cost of capital when they make such purchases.

If Congress constructed a plan that adhered to these principles, it could increase economic growth by as much as 15 percent over 10 years.

To achieve these aims, conservatives generally favor a system that eliminates multiple levels of taxation levied on saving and investment, which can be accomplished through a consumption tax.

There are four ways to establish such a system:

• A flat fax, either the traditional method or a consumed income method.
• A national retail sales tax.
• A business transfer tax.
• A hybrid of these approaches.

House Republicans’ Tax Reform Plan

Whether tax reform becomes a reality depends on its status in Congress and whether the president has a plan and makes that plan a prominent part of his or her agenda.

In the House of Representatives, Republicans released a tax reform blueprint earlier this year that adhered to many of the principles outlined above.

The blueprint would lower tax rates for everyone, reduce taxes on saving and investment, create a territorial system, and establish expensing. It also would abolish the estate tax, better known as the death tax. It could benefit, however, from a better treatment of interest.

House Republicans’ blueprint bodes well for tax reform. Should the House follow through and write a bill that follows the blueprint, it would create a tax plan that would grow the economy more than 9 percent over a decade.

Donald Trump’s Tax Reform Plan

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has a tax reform plan too. His plan would reduce rates for families to the same levels as the House blueprint.

The Trump plan also would reduce rates on saving and investing. It would lower the rate for businesses to 15 percent, although it remains unclear to which businesses the rate applies.

It would allow more businesses to expense their capital purchases. It would maintain a worldwide tax system. And it too would eliminate the death tax.

The plan is strongly pro-growth, although not as much so as the House blueprint. It would grow the economy between 6.9 percent and 8.2 percent, depending on how it treats pass-through businesses.

The Trump plan would benefit strongly from greater clarity on what tax rate pass-through businesses pay.

The combined rate for C corporations, after accounting for the 15 percent corporate rate and the 20 percent capital gains rate, is 32 percent. The pass-through rate, if the 15 percent business rate does not apply to them, is 33 percent.

A separate rate for pass-throughs in the 25 percent range, such as the House blueprint calls for, could be an agreeable middle ground.

The plan also could be improved by granting all businesses expensing and by moving to a territorial system.

The Trump plan would reduce revenues by between approximately $1 trillion and $2.5 trillion over 10 years, depending on the treatment of pass-through businesses, after accounting for the economic growth it would foster, according to the Tax Foundation’s analysis.

This is a reasonably-sized tax cut considering revenues are set to exceed their historical average as a share of the economy each year over the next decade.

Hillary Clinton’s Tax Hike

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton proposes several tax increases. A sample of them includes:

• A 4 percent surcharge on adjusted gross incomes (AGI) over $5 million.
• A 30 percent minimum tax for AGIs over $1 million (the so-called Buffett rule).
• Limiting the value of itemized deductions to 28 percent.
• Increasing capital gains tax rates.
• Capping the size of Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs).
• Raising the death tax rate to 65 percent for estates over $1 billion and reducing the exemption amount from $5 million to $3.5 million per person.
• Assessing an exit tax on businesses that invert.

These assorted tax increases combined do not create a tax reform plan that will lessen the impediment the tax code creates for economic growth.

Instead, the Clinton plan would hurt economic growth by reducing incentives for working, saving and investing, and taking risks.

The death tax proposal would be particularly harmful. The confiscatory rate would strongly deter investment, reducing job creation and wage growth.

Tax Reform Hinge on Who Wins in November

Tax reform will have a chance of becoming law in 2017 because of the House’s commitment to it.

If Trump becomes president, he and the House can work to meld their plans. The prospects of a strong pro-growth plan in that scenario are high.

If Clinton becomes president, tax reform would become less likely. Instead, Congress would need to stop her desired tax increases, much as they worked against President Obama’s tax hikes for many of his years in office.

That effort would deter time and focus from the primary goal of reforming the nation’s outdated tax code. (For more from the author of “The State of Tax Reform in 2016” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

National ICE Council Announces First-Ever Presidential Endorsement in Its History

Early Monday morning, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council made a huge announcement that rocked the political world.

“We hereby endorse Donald J. Trump, and urge all Americans, especially the millions of lawful immigrants living within our country, to support Donald J. Trump, and to protect American jobs, wages and lives,” the organization’s president, Chris Crane, wrote in a statement published at DonaldJTrump.com.

What made the endorsement so stunning was that the National ICE Council had never before in its history made an endorsement for a candidate running for an elected office.

Plus, the council represented 7,600 federal immigration officers and law enforcement support staff members.

Yet this time around, the council chose to have a vote, and according to the results of that vote, GOP candidate Donald Trump received the vast majority of the council members’ support.

“This first-ever endorsement was conducted by a vote of our membership, with Hillary Clinton receiving only 5 percent of that vote,” Crane’s statement clarified.

In explaining why council members disliked Democrat candidate Clinton so much, Crane pointed to her support of “the most radical immigration proposal in U.S. history.”

He also claimed that her plan had been crafted with the assistance of “special interests and open-borders radicals.”

“Her radical plan would result in the loss of thousands of innocent American lives, mass victimization and death for many attempting to immigrate to the United States, the total gutting of interior enforcement, the handcuffing of ICE officers, and an uncontrollable flood of illegal immigrants across U.S. borders,” his statement went on.

The Democrat candidate would also expand executive amnesty, expand catch-and-release and prioritize the non-enforcement of America’s federal immigration laws, Crane wrote.

Trump’s plan, on the other hand, would “restore immigration security” by, among other things, cancelling President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, putting an end to sanctuary cities and providing immigration agents with the tools and resources they need to effectively carry out their jobs.

“America has been lied to about every aspect of immigration in the United States,” Crane continued.

“We can fix our broken immigration system, and we can do it in a way that honors America’s legacy as a land of immigrants, but Donald Trump is the only candidate who is willing to put politics aside so that we can achieve that goal,” he concluded. (For more from the author of “National ICE Council Announces First-Ever Presidential Endorsement in Its History” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.