GOP Chairman Exposes Dems’ Latest Abortion Trojan Horse

/0 Comments/in , /by

The top Republican on a House subcommittee pointed out Tuesday that, contrary to proponents’ claims, recent pushes to ratify the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment would benefit the pro-abortion movement. During a hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, Ranking Member Mike Johnson, R-La., pointed out that groups on both sides of the debate agree that ERA ratification would be a big win for abortion.

But before we get into that, you may be wondering why in the world this decades-old, expired ratification effort is in the news again. Well, though the original 1972 proposal didn’t get the support of the 38 states it needed, even after Congress extended the original deadline, the states of Nevada and Illinois passed their own ratifications in 2017 and 2018, respectively.

To get the amendment passed without restarting the entire ratification process from the beginning, ERA proponents need one more state to sign on and some kind of workaround to lift the congressionally imposed deadline. Some proponents of the amendment argue that Congress could simply vote to lift the ratification deadline, as does a 2013 Congressional Research Service report. Others argue that the Constitution didn’t give Congress the power to set a deadline in the first place.

Earlier this year, pro-lifers in Virginia mobilized against efforts to resurrect the amendment in the Old Dominion. “The only reason to pick the ERA off the dusty floor of history is because of a fierce desire to protect abortion at all costs,” Students for Life of America executive vice president Tina Whittington said of Virginia’s ERA efforts. “The ERA is out of sync with this century where women are already protected as equals in our legislation and the courts.”

But the amendment has indeed made it off the dusty floor of history and found its way back to the halls of Congress, which brings us to Tuesday’s hearing.

During Tuesday’s hearing, subcommittee Chairman Mike Johnson, R-La., responded to proponents’ “bold contention” that the ERA “has nothing to do with abortion” by stating that “pro-abortion groups are clearly saying now” that an ERA “would mean the end of laws that protect the sanctity of every human life.”

As proof, he cited a recent article from the National Organization for Women, which says “an ERA – properly interpreted – would negate the hundreds of laws that have been passed restricting access to abortion care and contraception.”

He went on to list a 2019 Planned Parenthood legal complaint that argues that Pennsylvania’s ERA invalidates state-level abortion laws and should therefore allow for Medicaid-funded abortions, as well as a recent document from NARAL Pro-Choice America.


“The ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion,” reads a March 2019 email alert, which adds that an ERA “would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws.”

“Look,” Johnson concluded, “the fact is that now there is essential agreement between pro-life and pro-abortion groups that the language of the 1972 ERA is likely to result in a powerful reinforcement and expansion of abortion rights.”

The full hearing can be viewed here, and Johnson’s statement begins at 2:10:45:

In addition to Johnson’s examples, a 2018 post at the Daily Beast from pro-abortion journalist Stephanie Russell-Kraft explains: “A right to abortion based on an Equal Rights Amendment wouldn’t be about the abortion procedure itself. It would be about women’s ability to live equally as full citizens under the law.”

After the hearing today, Russell-Kraft also discussed the strategy of trying to sell the ERA by divorcing it from the issue of abortion.

“I understand the political strategy of avoiding abortion, to get the #ERA passed,” she tweeted. “But opponents are raising that concern no matter what. What do we lose when we talk about gender equality without including reproductive rights?” (For more from the author of “GOP Chairman Exposes Dems’ Latest Abortion Trojan Horse” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Pelosi Makes Explosive Claim Against President Trump

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By Fox News. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday night that President Trump “has demonstrated on a daily basis his obstruction of justice” amid a conflict between the White House and Congress over the terms of scheduled testimony by Attorney General William Barr before the House Judiciary Committee.

Barr is scheduled to testify before the Senate and House Judiciary panels this week on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report. However, the Justice Department informed the House committee on Sunday that Barr would not attend the scheduled Thursday hearing if committee lawyers seek to question him.

When asked if she had a message for Barr Monday evening, Pelosi said: “Respect the constitution. Honor your oath of office. Honor the request of Congress. For the American people.”

It is unusual for committee counsels to question a witness. But committees can generally make their own rules, and other panels have made similar exceptions. Democrats scheduled a committee vote for Wednesday on a proposal to allow both parties to turn over 30 minutes of questioning per side to staff lawyers. The Justice Department and committee Republicans have balked at this arrangement.

“The Attorney General agreed to appear before Congress,” Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said late Sunday. “Therefore, Members of Congress should be the ones doing the questioning. He [Barr] remains happy to engage with Members on their questions regarding the Mueller report.” (Read more from “Pelosi Makes Explosive Claim Against President Trump” HERE)

________________________________________________

Liberal and Moderate Democrats Unveil an Infrastructure Road Map With No Price Tag as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer Prepare to Meet Trump

By CNBC. A broad coalition of House Democrats is laying out an infrastructure plan road map that calls on the federal government to provide the majority of funding and warns against repealing environmental regulations.

The resolution, to be introduced Monday, is a joint effort of members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the moderate Blue Dogs and newly elected Democrats. The groups hope it will provide a framework for party leadership ahead of Tuesday’s scheduled trip to the White House by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for a meeting with President Donald Trump to determine whether there is common ground on what traditionally has been a bipartisan issue.

The resolution calls for significant federal investment in infrastructure, stating that most of the funding should come from the government rather than private entities — a sharp contrast to Trump’s initial plan to leverage $200 billion in federal dollars as an incentive to attract a total of $1 trillion in infrastructure spending. The president’s proposal never gained traction on Capitol Hill, and Trump himself did not seem to fully embrace it. (Read more from “Liberal and Moderate Democrats Unveil an Infrastructure Road Map With No Price Tag as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer Prepare to Meet Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Lesbian Commandant of Cadets Removed From Air Force Academy

/2 Comments/in , , /by

The first openly gay general at the Air Force Academy has been removed as commandant of cadets, but leaders were mum Monday on the exact cause of the apparent firing.

Brig. Gen. Kristin Goodwin, who led military training at the academy since 2017, was removed from her role as commandant amid an investigation, the school confirmed.

“Effective immediately, Brig. Gen. Kristin Goodwin is no longer performing her duties as the commandant of cadets pending the results of an ongoing investigation,” the academy said in an email to The Gazette. “We cannot provide additional information on the investigation at this time.”

It’s an extremely rare move, making her the first academy commandant relieved of command since 2003, when a commandant was fired for comments that suggested a cadet invited sexual assault. Goodwin had only about a month left at the academy before a planned move to a Pentagon job. . .

Goodwin, a former B-2 bomber pilot who moved to the school with her wife and children, was praised by some for a tough new set of discipline polices that made cadets toe the line. She also faced criticism for her stormy relationship with subordinates and colleagues, a few of whom referred to her with the imperial nickname “duchess,” the general’s callsign from flying days. Several academy officers, requesting anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the case, said Goodwin was a caustic leader who treated those under her roughly and was easily riled. (Read more from “Lesbian Commandant of Cadets Removed From Air Force Academy” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Family Sues Deutsche Bank, Capital One

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Trump family on Monday filed a lawsuit against Deutsche Bank and Capital One to prevent the banks from complying with subpoenas from the House Intelligence and Financial Services Committees, the Washington Examiner reported. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of President Donald Trump, three of his children and the Trump Organization. They allege the Democratic-led subpoenas are being issued to “harass” the president and his family based solely on political differences.

“This case involves congressional subpoenas that have no legitimate or lawful purpose,” the lawsuit says. “The subpoenas were issued to harass President Donald J. Trump, to rummage through every aspect of his personal finances, his businesses and the private information of the president and his family, and to ferret about for any material that might be used to cause him political damage. No grounds exist to establish any purpose other than a political one.”

The House Intelligence and Financial Services Committees sent letters to Deutsche Bank earlier this month. The Committees are interested in Deutsche Bank’s relationship with President Trump because they have given him more than $2 billion in loans over the years. (Read more from “Trump Family Sues Deutsche Bank, Capital One” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

There’s Some Irony About Ilhan Omar’s Tweet About Synagogue Shooting

/0 Comments/in , /by

So, you would think that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) who has a long history of peddling anti-Semitic tropes would probably want to stay away from this one, right? Nope. She tweeted, “Earnest shot & killed Jewish worshippers and bombed a Masjid [Mosque]. Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism are two sides of the same bigoted coin. Let us stand together as Americans in rejecting hate!” She linked to her op-ed she wrote after she was elected to Congress on the matter.

Lady, you said that supporters of Israel exhibited dual loyalty and said Israel had hypotonic powers to blind people to their evil. Oh, there was the “all about the Benjamins” tweet, which centered on AIPAC and its donations. Listen, we get it. As a Democrat, you have separate rules. You can be hypocritical and get away with it. You can be an insufferable condescending pile of garbage, but be viewed as some rising star in a party that has many allies in the liberal media. In real world, Omar is pretty much now a full-blown anti-Semite—and an anti-Semite condemning…anti-Semitism is just wrong. But, as Grabien’s Tom Elliott noted, an anti-Semite who then lectures us about…anti-Semitism is just…there’s no shame. The irony is extreme. Of course, the media has already pegged the true culprit: Donald Trump. (Read more from “There’s Some Irony About Ilhan Omar’s Tweet About Synagogue Shooting” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Rod Rosenstein Hands in Resignation

/0 Comments/in , /by

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who frequently found himself in the political crosshairs due to his role in the special counsel’s Russia probe and whose departure has long been expected, submitted his resignation on Monday to President Trump, effective May 11. . .

“His devotion to the Department and its professionals is unparalleled,” the statement read. “Over the course of his distinguished government career, he has navigated many challenging situations with strength, grace, and good humor.”

In his resignation letter, Rosenstein thanked Trump “for the opportunity to serve; for the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations; and for the goals you set in your inaugural address: patriotism, unity, safety, education, and prosperity, because ‘a nation exists to serve its citizens.'”

Rosenstein, 54, previously served as deputy assistant attorney general and U.S. attorney. He had intended to leave his position last month but stayed on for the completion of the Mueller probe, which Rosenstein had overseen. . .

Rosenstein was part of a small group of department officials who reviewed the document and helped shape its public release. After Mueller didn’t reach a conclusion on whether Trump had obstructed the investigation, Barr and Rosenstein stepped in and determined the evidence wasn’t enough to support such an allegation. (Read more from “Rod Rosenstein Hands in Resignation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Do Americans Support Allowing Convicts to Vote From Prison?

/0 Comments/in , /by

About 3-in-4 American voters oppose a plan by socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and other elected Democrats to allow convicted felons in local, state, and federal prisons to vote in federal elections from their jail cells, a new poll finds.

The latest Business Insider/SurveyMonkey poll finds that about 75 percent of Americans, or three-in-four, oppose a plan by Democrats to allow all convicted felons, including those currently serving time in prison, to vote in federal elections.

Only about 15 percent of Americans, or about three-in-20, said they supported giving voting rights to convicted felons that would allow them to vote from their prison cells. Likewise, only about 20 percent of Americans said they would support allowing non-violent felons to vote from prison.

Sanders and other elected Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez first voiced their support for allowing all 1.2 to 1.6 million convicted felons serving time in the prison system to vote from their jail cells last week. The plan would mean that up to 164,000 convicted rapists and 183,000 convicted murderers would be allowed to vote from prison in presidential and congressional elections.

“If you are a citizen, you have the right to vote. And that is a right we must protect because we know the history of this country, we know that women didn’t have the right to vote,” Sanders told supporters last week during a rally in Houston, Texas. “We know that African-Americans didn’t have the right to vote.” (Read more from “Do Americans Support Allowing Convicts to Vote From Prison?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Fox Host: China Is ‘Funding Biden Family Businesses’ With ‘Billions of Dollars’

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Sunday, Fox News Channel’s Steve Hilton reported on Peter Schweizer’s investigation of former vice president Joe Biden’s family’s business dealings with China’s government, concluding that Biden was “compromised by a foreign power and unfit to be president.”

Hunter Biden — Biden’s second son — secured $1 billion in financing from the Bank of China — an arm of the Chinese government — for a private equity firm founded by himself and Christopher Heinz, the stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry. That private equity firm was named Bohai-Harvest RST (BHR).

Joe Biden “is the very definition of a corrupt insider,” said Hilton, rejecting left-wing and partisan Democrat marketing of Joe Biden as “a man of the working people.” He profiled Biden in a segment entitled, “Swamp Watch.” . . .

Hilton noted the values and origins of some of BHR’s other investments, including, “$145,000 from a Kazak oligarch, $1 million from Chinese entities, $1.2 million from a mysterious LLC tied to a Swiss bank that’s been implicated in money laundering, [and] $3.1 million from corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs.” . . .

Hilton continued, “When it came to a choice between working Americans and his donors, he chose the donors. When it came to a choice between working Americans and China, he chose China. He may have started out as a blue-collar boy from Scranton, Pennsylvania, but he ended up as a swampy stooge for Beijing, China.” (Read more from “Fox Host: China Is ‘Funding Biden Family Businesses’ With ‘Billions of Dollars'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Vet Who Converted to Islam Charged With Plotting Terror Attacks

/0 Comments/in , /by

Federal law enforcement officials announced on Monday that a U.S. Army vet who recently converted to Islam was arrested late last week in California for allegedly planning terror attacks in Los Angeles.

The suspect was arrested on Friday “after he received what he thought was a bomb, but was actually an inert device supplied to him by an undercover law enforcement officer, federal officials said,” CBS Los Angeles reported.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that, according to a federal affidavit, the suspect considered “various attacks — including targeting Jews, churches, and police officers” and ultimately “decided to detonate an IED at a rally scheduled to take place in Long Beach this past weekend. As part of the plot, [the suspect] asked his confederate — who actually was cooperating with the FBI as part of the investigation — to find a bomb-maker, and [the suspect] last week purchased several hundred nails to be used as shrapnel inside the IED.”

The Washington Times noted that the suspect posted an “online video professing his Muslim faith on March 2 and the next day said in a post that ‘America needs another vegas event,’ referring to the October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada, that would give ‘them a taste of the terror they gladly spread all over the world.'”

Investigators say that they believe the suspect was “a recent convert to Islam who…was seeking revenge for the March massacres at two New Zealand mosques that killed 50 people,” The Washington Post reported. (Read more from “Vet Who Converted to Islam Charged With Plotting L.A. Terror Attacks” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Army’s Response to Incident With Mexican Soldiers?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Two weeks ago, active-duty soldiers at the border were detained and disarmed by a group of Mexican soldiers on the U.S. side of the border. In addition, last week, five men armed with AK-47s were caught on camera in Lukeville, Arizona, escorting an illegal alien woman through a low border barrier with full confidence that neither Border Patrol nor the military would do anything about it – other than completing their criminal smuggling conspiracy by processing and releasing the illegal immigrant. The president promised to get tougher and send “ARMED SOLDIERS to the Border.” Well, the military has now announced a surge … of lawyers and cooks.

Yes, America is not allowed to engage in military operations to repel armed invaders at our own border; the best the military can do is help Border Patrol with cooking meals and transporting illegal immigrants to further facilitate catch-and-release. Over the weekend, the L.A. Times reported that the Pentagon “is moving to loosen rules that bar U.S. soldiers from interacting with migrants on the southern border.” The government is sending 300 additional soldiers, to include “military lawyers who can help Customs and Border Protection agents process migrants, drivers to help transport detained migrants and cooks to provide meals for them.”

Undoubtedly, the move is designed to free up more border agents. But free them up to do what? Border Patrol most certainly will not go after the cartels and repel violent invaders even right at our border, per long-standing rules. Nor are agents turning back the migrants. Thus, if they are going to engage in catch-and-release anyway, what is the point of marshalling the military into that business as well? Shouldn’t the military at least be freed up to patrol the frontier against an invasion, something Border Patrol was clearly never empowered to do?

Responding to this announcement, Col. Dan Steiner, a retired Air Force veteran who coordinated military operations at our border for the Texas government, told CR that “the military attempted to answer a logistical issue for Border Patrol, but not the tactical issue of force protection” arising from the incident with the Mexican soldiers last week. “I’m not sure how sending extra lawyers, extra drivers, and extra cooks addresses the issue of preventing the next ‘confusion’ incident with Mexican soldiers or the cartels,” said Steiner. “Does it help put more Border Agents back on the line? Yes. Does it make the troops safer? No.”

Steiner, who warned on my podcast last week of a coming Arab Spring-style collapse in Mexico, noted that this is part of an overall approach to the border that is built upon processing and adjudicating mass migration rather than deterring it. “Helping to reduce the burden logistically on Border Patrol is not addressing the issue of mass migration or the cartel and smuggler incursions at our border.”

Funny enough, per the L.A. Times article, the administration is getting accused of pushing the boundaries of the Posse Comitatus Act by having the military interact with migrant processing. In reality, the military would be on more solid legal ground executing its core mission of defense against external threats rather than dealing with internal immigration laws, if it were freed up to strike out against the cartels and smugglers approaching our border. That is the quintessential use of the military.

The Posse Comitatus law was signed by President Grant in 1878 to prohibit the military from being used to enforce domestic Reconstruction-era laws against American citizens in the southern states, absent direct authorization from Congress. To repel an invasion at our border — any invasion — is actually the quintessential use of our military that our Founders had in mind. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution tasks the federal government with guaranteeing states’ protection against invasion, and we owe it to Arizona and Texas to secure their territory. And unlike “offensive expeditions” that George Washington felt required congressional authorization for deploying troops, the use of the military to fight the drug cartels and smuggling is part of “the power to repel sudden attacks” that James Madison and Elbridge Gerry promised at the constitutional convention would be left to the executive.

Between the diseases, drugs, crime, labor, sex trafficking, and belligerent acts of rogue Mexican soldiers and dangerous cartels, why won’t this administration finally treat our border as the consummate national security issue rather than some domestic policy issue? The blueprint for stopping this is obvious, but nothing will change until the administration closes the border to immigration and begins arming our soldiers with weapons of war to combat the brutal cartels rather than with lawyers and cooks. (For more from the author of “Army’s Response to Incident With Mexican Soldiers?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE