Longest-Serving Member of Congress Has Died

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former Democratic Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) has passed away at the age of 92. He was the longest-serving member of Congress, holding office for a staggering 21,572 days. He took office in 1955 to represent the 15thcongressional district, now the 12th district, in Michigan, succeeding his father; Rep. John Dingell, Sr. He served until his retirement in 2015. His wife, Debbie, now occupies the seat. Congresswoman Dingell had signaled that her husband was entering his final days, informing the public that he had moved into hospice care on Wednesday (via Fox News):

“It is with a heavy heart that we announce the passing of John David Dingell, Jr., former Michigan Congressman and longest-serving member of the United States Congress,” the congresswoman said in a statement following Dingell’s death.

“Congressman Dingell died peacefully today at his home in Dearborn, surrounded by his wife Deborah. He was a lion of the United States Congress and a loving son, father, husband, grandfather, and friend. He will be remembered for his decades of public service to the people of Southeast Michigan, his razor sharp wit, and a lifetime of dedication to improving the lives of all who walk this earth.” . . .

Nicknamed “The Truck” during his longtime tenure as chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the congressman from Detroit fueled the passage of many landmark measures, including health care reform, energy regulations and telecommunications expansion.

(Read more from “Longest-Serving Member of Congress Has Died” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Top 2020 Democrats Co-Sponsor Ocasio-Cortez’s Bonkers Green New Deal Plan

/0 Comments/in , /by

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., made a big splash Thursday after she rolled out the framework for a Green New Deal with Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. The plan, which calls for massive government intervention in the economy to bring America to “net-zero emissions” in 10 years, was introduced as a nonbinding resolution to state the intent of Congress to pass Green New Deal policies in the future.

This is not just the fever dream of Ocasio-Cortez. This plan is going mainstream in the Democratic Party, with no fewer than five 2020 presidential candidates co-sponsoring the resolution.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., are also co-sponsors of the Green New Deal resolution. Sanders has not officially declared his candidacy for president but is widely expected to do so.

Additionally, 60 Democrats in the House of Representatives are backing the Green New Deal, according to the Washington Post, and four more Democratic senators who are not running for president (yet) as well.

I took a look at the plan earlier and others have had a chance to read it too. The reviews are in: The Green New Deal, which all of these Democrats support, is NUTS.

And the plan to pay for it all?

Five of the top Democratic 2020 contenders are backing the Green New Deal. If any of them win the DNC nomination, this radical plan to overturn the American economy becomes a plank in the Democratic Party platform.

This is the big idea on the Left heading in to the 2020 presidential election. The question is, what’s the big idea on the Right? (For more from the author of “Top 2020 Democrats Co-Sponsor Ocasio-Cortez’s Bonkers Green New Deal Plan” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Must-Read: Washington Post Explains Why Democrat Northam ‘Must Go,’ but It’s Not Why You Might Think

/0 Comments/in , /by

The editorial board of The Washington Post has decided that it’s time for embattled Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam to resign. The “circumstances are decisive,” the editors wrote in an editorial Wednesday, “what’s done cannot be undone. He must go.” But the impetus for their demand is not Northam dressing in blackface (well, not really), nor is it because they’re hoping the equally embattled lieutenant governor will take his place (“he has his own problems,” after all), and it’s certainly not because the “moderate” governor attempted to justify infanticide. No, it’s a bit more, well, complicated than that.

“Gov. Ralph Northam (D) can no longer effectively serve the people of Virginia who elected him,” the editorial begins. “His shifting and credulity-shredding explanations for the racist photograph on his medical school yearbook page, and the silence into which he then succumbed for days — after initially promising to do ‘the hard work’ of atonement and apology to restore his standing with Virginians — is simply too much.”

In other words, it’s not the blackface photo (or Michael Jackson impression) that’s the nail on the coffin for Northam; it’s his “shifting and credulity-shredding explanations” for it.

“His decade-long record in public office is admirable; it is equally true that his governorship has been irredeemably wrecked by the self-inflicted, racially callous and clueless mess he has made in recent days,” they continue. The editorial board reminds their readers that “facts do matter” and, in this case, Northam’s left too many “unsettled and unanswered.”

“First and foremost among the questions they raise: How could he possibly have admitted to something as damning as appearing in the photo if he was certain he wasn’t one of the people in it? How did that photo wind up on his page if he didn’t furnish it to the yearbook editors? What do the governor’s now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t statements say about his judgment?” they ask. “The explanations Mr. Northam has proffered are vague and unconvincing. Virginians deserve better. Mr. Northam’s time is up.” (Read more from “Must-Read: Washington Post Explains Why Democrat Northam ‘Must Go,’ but It’s Not Why You Might Think” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The War in Our Communities and at Our Border Threatens Our National Security

/0 Comments/in , /by

The political class does everything it can to cover up any mention of the murder and mayhem resulting from the border invasion so that we won’t confront the problem head-on with the military at our border and full-bore interior enforcement of our immigration laws. Yet the same political elites will spare no resources in fighting other people’s wars and will fight against those who do not wish to permanently guard Kabul.

Security for Kabul but not for our own communities

Earlier this week, Republicans in the Senate led by Mitch McConnell successfully tacked on an amendment to a pro-Israel bill that expressed the sense of the Senate essentially rebuking the president for wanting to pull troops out of Syria and Afghanistan. The amendment stated that the Senate feels our country “faces continuing threats from terrorist groups operating in Syria and Afghanistan and that the precipitous withdrawal of United States forces from either country could put at risk hard-won gains and United States national security.”

Hard-won gains in Afghanistan? Are you kidding me?

As for Syria, our operation in Syria essentially cleared out the Sunni insurgency for Assad and Iran, which enabled Iran to build a corridor directly threatening Israel. So much for tacking this amendment to a pro-Israel bill!

Why is the Republican Senate not expressing its sense of the continued threats of the gangs and cartels operating within our own country, based south of our own border? Why does it not demand that we have more troops at our own border as the New Mexico governor pulls out the National Guard from the worst hot spots in the New Mexico bootheel?

It’s amazing that a party that typically votes with its leader in the White House chose this, of all issues, for its stand against the president. Cruz, Kennedy, Lee, and Paul were the only senators willing to question the priority of rebuilding Kabul for two decades in middle of a 1,300-year tribal war. That goal of social work in the Middle East is so strong with most Republicans, it even trumps party unity.

Earlier this week, Ted Cruz, one of the four senators to oppose this amendment, effectively laid out the true hawkish position on foreign policy in a seminal speech before the American Enterprise Institute. He rejected the false choice between interventionists and isolationists, noting that we always need to assess what is actually in our national interest. And nowhere is this more evident than with our own homeland security. When will the so-called hawks finally understand that the Mexican cartels and the transnational gangs are all external threats we either let into our country or allow to operate freely on our border and that they need much more attention than Kabul?

The grave lessons of the MS-13 subway attack in New York

Just look at the glaring example of the MS-13 subway attack in New York on Sunday. It’s the sort of brazen cartel hit you see regularly in the very countries from which migrants are flooding. We now know that Ramiro Gutierrez, the man who shot a rival gang member in broad daylight in a city subway, was here illegally and had nine prior arrests, including four felonies, yet he was released on bail every time and was never turned over to ICE. NYPD did everything it could to cover up the fact that he was an illegal alien gang member, which makes this an external and avoidable attack, not just some act of domestic violence.

There are a number of important lessons from this attack:

Turning America into Mexico (which is more violent than Afghanistan): The style of violence we have seen for so long south of our border is now in our communities, thanks to our open borders letting in this sort of violence that could easily be kept out. Lest you take solace in the notion that this is only gang-on-gang violence, just take a look at Mexico’s problem, and you will see that it spills over into innocent people getting hurt, and that is already happening in our cities.

The ultimate threat of sanctuary cities: This is not only a border problem, but a collapse of our laws internally. Given that the violence is no longer just at our border, but in all our communities, because most of the illegal immigrants are moving to the East Coast, enforcing our laws on the interior is just as much as a national security concern as border security, which in itself should be a greater priority than Kabul. Yet McConnell, to this day, has refused to tackle sanctuary cities or even force Democrats to take a tough vote on criminal aliens. Not only should this “animal,” as Trump would rightfully call him, never have been in our country, we had at least nine opportunities to get rid of him after he came here illegally. But thanks to sanctuaries violating foundational powers of the federal government to guard against external threats, he was able to commit murder.

This is a theme that is all too common. Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies, who has studied interior immigration enforcement for decades, lamented that this is another example of a violent criminal alien “repeatedly recycled through New York’s criminal justice system and repeatedly sent back on the streets when he could have been sent home if the cops had been permitted to work with ICE.” Vaughan notes how deporting these people at the first sign of criminality “is the best tool we have to fight gangs like MS-13 that have many members who are here illegally.” “Broader enforcement will help keep them from replenishing their ranks like they have been since 2012, within the influx of minors and families from Central America.”

I spoke with Tony Mottola, a retired sergeant detective with the NYPD, about the subway attack, and he was horrified by the lack of coordination with between local law enforcement and the feds on foreign national criminals. “Federal, state, and local law enforcement need to be more transparent with each other and the American people in regard to transnational gangs and the Mexican cartel activities in the U.S.,” said the veteran officer, who served as NYPD’s Intelligence Bureau’s domestic liaison to all law enforcement agencies on terrorism, gangs, and criminal activity within the U.S. “For these agencies to be successful in fighting crime inflicted by gangs like MS-13, we as a nation have to acknowledge more has to be done beyond arresting and putting these gang members in jail. The Mexican cartels have become a global threat that [has] found ways to circumvent the current U.S. border security. As these gangs continue to flourish, they will become even more violent, jeopardizing the public’s safety.”

McConnell seems to have no motivation to deal with the foreign threats on our own soil and states that harbor them by violating laws duly passed by Congress. “Congress needs to join the fight against these thugs, too, by adjusting our laws to keep these knuckleheads from getting green cards and other benefits,” warns Vaughan. Indeed, many of the new MS-13 recruits are among those who came in recently from Central America who are designated as unaccompanied alien children, resettled as refugees, and eventually eligible for green cards, making it harder to deport them.

Many crimes of illegal aliens go undocumented: This case is a vivid illustration of how the amount of crime committed by illegal aliens is even more than the numbers Trump cited in his State of the Union address. We now know that the NYPD, pursuant to Mayor Bill de Blasio’s order, doesn’t even track the immigration status of those who are arrested for internal purposes, much less turn over illegal immigrants to ICE. Remember, most illegal aliens live in sanctuary jurisdictions like New York City where the cops will not turn over those arrested for assault, DUIs, or drug trafficking to ICE. For that matter, ICE recently caught illegal aliens who were arrested by the NYPD for sexual assaults on minors and were evidently let out of the system without informing the feds. Can you imagine the true level of crime from aliens in this country who were never apprehended by ICE, thanks to other major sanctuary cities?

Why is that not a national security threat, especially when so many of these two million known criminal aliens are tied to the most brutal cartels who are terrorists in all but name only?

The looming question for Republicans like McConnell is: What will it take for them to treat our homeland security with the same degree of seriousness that they accord to the “security situation” in Kabul? (For more from the author of “The War in Our Communities and at Our Border Threatens Our National Security” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Unveils Green New Deal Framework to Control Americans’ Lives

/0 Comments/in , /by

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., deserves credit — she’s a socialist, she went to Congress with an agenda, and she is using every opportunity available to her to advance that agenda.

Working together with Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., Ocasio-Cortez has released a framework for a Green New Deal, to be introduced in Congress as a nonbinding House resolution. The document outlines the broad goals for a Democratic legislative agenda to fight climate change. As a nonbinding resolution, its passage in the House would not make law, but it would declare Congress’ intent to meet these goals with future legislative action.

Ocasio-Cortez wants to achieve “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions” and will use a “10-year national mobilization” to do it. To call the policies she is proposing to meet those goals drastic would be a gross understatement. In this document is nothing short of a socialist program to vastly expand government power well beyond the constraints of the Constitution, remake the American economy by force, send the national debt completely out of sight, and invade the private lives of every American to do it all in just ten years. That’s not an exaggeration. Ocasio-Cortez’s own FAQ calls this plan a “massive transformation of our society” that will “mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.” She’s referring to FDR’s wartime command economy, where civilian goods were not produced because of government prohibitions, the top income tax rate was 81 percent, ordinary nondurable goods were rationed, and the government exercised vast power over businesses and wages and restricted the economic life of all Americans.

Reviewing some lowlights of her plan shows that she is in fact asking for a command economy to fight climate change. The Green New Deal would attempt to:

Meet “100 percent of the power demand in the Unite States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.” That means massive subsidies, a Washington D.C.-directed overhaul of the American electric grid, and the loss of every job on oil rigs, in coal mines, and in fracking in the country.

Upgrade “all existing buildings” in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency. Folks, “all existing buildings” means the government would remodel your house to be “energy efficient.”

Overhaul “transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.” This includes investing in “zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing,” public transportation, and boondoggles like “high speed rail.” She actually told NPR her proposal is to expand high-speed rail to a “scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Private cars will need to be electric cars. And what happens if you own a private boat? No more gas-powered engines? Explain that to every sports fisherman in America. And all of this in just 10 years!

And then we get to the stuff that’s not directly climate-related:

“A Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses.” So the whole parade of left-wing special interest groups needs to be involved.

The Green New Deal will ensure the “public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment” through “community grants, public banks, and other public financing.” This is Ocasio-Cortez telling you the government will pay for all of this, which means higher taxes. Much higher.

Provide “resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities.” She means free college.

Ensure “that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages … and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers.” That’s a guaranteed jobs program with the following benefits: “a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security.”

A Green New Deal will “enact and enforc[e] trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections” to “stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas” and “grow domestic manufacturing in the United States.” This means tariffs and protectionist trade barriers.

And finally, the government must provide “high-quality health care, affordable housing, economic security, and access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.” Straight-up socialism.

One thing I couldn’t find anywhere in this document is a statement on how these policies will actually counter or negate climate change. That’s because this is not about stopping climate change. Government policies in one country, even a country as large and powerful as the United States, cannot change the planet’s climate. Any notion of “fighting” climate change is purely symbolic — a feel-good excuse for socialists like Ocasio-Cortez to seize control of American economic activity, redistribute wealth, punish perceived privileged classes, and rigidly control what everybody can buy and how much money they have to buy it.

And what happens when the Constitution is trampled on and the nation is “mobilized”? Americans will be unfree and impoverished. (For more from the author of “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Unveils Green New Deal Framework to Control Americans’ Lives” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Justice Department Opens Probe Into Billionaire Child Rapist Jeffrey Epstein’s Plea Deal

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By The Daily Beast. The Department of Justice announced Wednesday that has opened an investigation into convicted sex offender and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s controversial plea deal.

The DOJ’s Office of Personal Responsibility is conducting the probe. (Read more from “JJustice Department Opens Probe Into Billionaire Child Rapist Jeffrey Epstein’s Plea Deal” HERE)
_______________________________________________

DOJ Opens Epstein Investigation

By NBC News. The Justice Department has launched an investigation into how federal government lawyers handled the case of a wealthy Florida man accused of having sex with underage girls, a DOJ official confirmed Thursday.

One of those lawyers, Alex Acosta, is now President Donald Trump’s labor secretary. But he was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida when key decisions about the case of Jeffrey Epstein were made. Prosecutors looked into allegations that Epstein abused dozens of teenage girls in his West Palm Beach mansion in the early 2000s. He eventually pleaded guilty to state charges involving a single victim in 2008.

But according to a civil lawsuit filed by other women who said they were among Epstein’s victims, one of the conditions of that deal was that a much larger federal investigation into Epstein and the people who helped him in his scheme would be dropped. Epstein, 66, served 13 months in jail and was allowed to leave almost every day through a work release program.

An investigation by The Miami Herald said that Acosta helped engineer the deal involving only state charges and agreed that it would be kept secret from other victims until it was presented in court, denying them a chance to object. The newspaper’s reporting led members of Congress to seek a Justice Department investigation. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., called the Epstein plea deal an “epic miscarriage of justice.”

On Thursday, the Justice Department notified Sasse that the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility “has now opened an investigation into allegations that Department attorneys may have committed professional misconduct in the manner in which the Epstein criminal matter was resolved.” The letter does not mention Acosta by name. (Read more from “DOJ Opens Epstein Investigation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

House Intelligence Adam Schiff Launches a ‘New’ Trump Investigation

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Townhall. During his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Donald Trump took a moment to jab Democrats for their Russia probe.

“An economic miracle is taking place in the United States — and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics or ridiculous partisan investigations,” Trump said, as Pelosi made an uncomfortable face behind him. “If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn’t work that way!”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff took the jab as a threat, as evidenced by his tweet on Wednesday:

. . .

In addition to moving forward with continuing the Russia probe, the Committee voted to release transcripts for private Committee testimony that took place during the last Congress. They plan to release the transcripts to the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel’s Office.

The Committee also voted to release all investigative transcripts to the public in order to provide us “with greater transparency and insight into Russia’s operations and the U.S. government’s response.” (Read more from “House Intelligence Adam Schiff Launches a ‘New’ Trump Investigation” HERE)

_______________________________________________

Trump Blasts Schiff as ‘Political Hack’ Over New Investigation

By The Hill. President Trump on Wednesday denounced House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) as a “political hack” for opening a sweeping investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia and his personal finances.

“He has no basis to do that. He’s just a political hack who’s trying to build a name for himself,” Trump told reporters at the White House after announcing his pick to lead the World Bank.

“It’s just presidential harassment and it’s unfortunate and it really does hurt our country,” Trump said of the probe.

Schiff earlier Wednesday said he would launch a probe that extends beyond alleged links between the Trump campaign and Russia that would examine whether Trump’s decisions as president have been motivated by financial gain. (Read more from “Trump Blasts Schiff as ‘Political Hack’ Over New Investigation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Stacey Abrams Forgets the Obama Administration Put Kids in Cages

/0 Comments/in , /by

. . .During her remarks about immigration, [Stacey] Abrams conveniently gave credit to President Barack Obama for “humane” policies.

From 2014:

According to sources on the ground in Nogales, who have asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing their jobs, 1000 OTM (other than Mexican) unaccompanied juveniles from Central America are already being sheltered in a warehouse and Border Patrol agents are expecting 2000 children by the end of next week. Estimates show overall 60,000 unaccompanied juveniles will illegally cross into the United States this year.

“It’s just chain-link cells so we have aliens sleeping all over the floor and they told us to probably expect another thousand over the next week, week and a half,” another Border Patrol agent tells Townhall. “We have these huge chain link cages, 20-feet tall with razor wire around them, this is inside a warehouse. They are probably 50 by 100 [feet] and there’s probably 10 or 11 of these big cages like that and so there’s probably 100-200 aliens in each cell, or cage and there’s just park benches right down the middle, two rows of park benches and then they give them these little rubber mats, a little foam pad to lay on. We don’t have enough blankets so they’re issuing out those foil blankets, it’s like a piece of tin foil and that’s all they get. There are so many people crammed. The smell is just horrendous, horrendous.”

(Read more from “Stacey Abrams Conveniently Forgets the Obama Administration Put Kids in Cages” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

SOTU Review: The 6 Big Domestic Policies Trump Proposed

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump’s second State of the Union address was intended to lay out a legislative agenda for divided government. Knowing that the House of Representatives is under Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s control, Trump attempted to strike a unifying and bipartisan tone and invited Democrats to work with him to benefit the country.

“The agenda I will lay out this evening is not a Republican agenda or Democrat agenda, it is the agenda of the American people,” Trump said. He referenced broad campaign promises he claimed both Republicans and Democrats have made — implying that under divided government these are the deals Congress can make to move the country forward.

“Many of us have campaigned on the same core promises, to defend American jobs and demand fair trade for American workers, to rebuild and revitalize our nation’s infrastructure, to reduce the price of health care and prescription drugs, to create an immigration system that is safe, lawful, modern, and secure, and to pursue a foreign policy that puts America’s interests first,” Trump said. “There is a new opportunity in American politics, if only we have the courage together to seize it.”

Here are the big policies Trump proposed.

1) Immigration

After touting the successes of his administration over the last two years in growing the economy and the bipartisan work of Congress to pass prison reform and make the Department of Veterans’ Affairs more accountable, Trump addressed the imminent problem facing Congress: how to strike a deal to fund border security and avert another government shutdown on February 15.

“Now, Republicans and Democrats must join forces again to confront an urgent national crisis,” Trump said. “Congress has 10 days left to pass a bill that will fund our government, protect our homeland, and secure are very dangerous southern border.”

Trump made the case against illegal immigrants in moral terms. He called on Congress to put “ruthless coyotes, cartels, drug dealers, and human traffickers out of business,” a line that Democrats refused to clap for and 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., actually shook her head at.

“This is a moral issue,” Trump said. “The lawless state of our southern border is a threat to the safety, security, and financial well-being of all Americans. We have a moral duty to create an immigration system that protects the lives and jobs of our citizens. This includes our obligation to the millions of immigrants living here today who follow the rules and respected our laws.”

Trump called on Congress to pass his proposal for $5.7 billion to build a “steel barrier system” and additional funding for technology, personnel, and humanitarian aid to address the border crisis. His compromise also includes extending DACA amnesty and the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program for three years — a compromise Democrats have already rejected.

Bipartisan committees in the House and Senate are working to craft a deal that Trump will sign. What conservatives need to demand in any border security deal is the removal of legal incentives inviting illegal immigration. Amnesty or DACA must not be the focus of a bipartisan immigration deal. Physical barriers, whether a wall or a fence, will not work if illegal immigrants continue to abuse U.S. asylum laws and catch-and-release policies.

2) Trade

Trump returned to one of his favorite topics, touting the $250 billion in tariffs he has levied on Chinese goods and declaring that the U.S. and China must come to a trade deal that includes “real, structural change to end unfair trade practices, reduce our chronic trade deficit, and protect American jobs.” The president plans to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping soon, but the details of this meeting have not been announced.

For policies at home, Trump called on Congress to pass the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the North American trade deal negotiated by the president’s administration that will replace NAFTA. A Heritage Foundation analysis of the deal gave it a mixed review, finding that several provisions brought down trade barriers and modernized digital trade, while in other areas, regulatory barriers on automobile trade were increased — including a minimum wage requirement and labor provisions that tilt left with controversial sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) provisions. It is not likely that the Democratic House will pass this trade deal.

Trump also called for Congress to take up the Reciprocal Trade Act, “so that if another country places an unfair tariff on an American product, we can charge them the exact same tariff on the same product that they sell to us.” The bill, introduced by Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wisc., would expand the president’s authority to impose new tariffs and import restrictions unilaterally. Conservatives may have reasonable disagreement on the effectiveness of tariffs, but Congress should not be delegating its lawmaking authority to the president. This is a separation of powers issue. Tariffs, which are tax increases, should be debated and passed by Congress, not imposed unilaterally by the executive branch.

3) Infrastructure

President Trump repeated his call for Congress to pass an infrastructure bill.

“I know that Congress is eager to pass an infrastructure bill — and I am eager to work with you on legislation to deliver new and important infrastructure investment, including investments in the cutting-edge industries of the future,” Trump said.

When Republicans controlled Congress, Trump proposed a $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan, claiming it would only cost the federal government $200 billion and arguing that the rest of the money would come from state spending and public-private partnerships. It was a bad idea then and remains so. It would drive up the debt and empower Washington D.C. to make infrastructure decisions for local communities. While Trump’s plan called for removing regulations and red tape that have stalled infrastructure projects in the past, he ought to go further by devolving authority to the states and letting each state decide for itself how to fund and build infrastructure.

4) Health care

Touching on health care, Trump called on Republicans and Democrats to work together to reduce drug prices and have hospitals and insurance companies post prices to be transparent with patients who are facing these costs. Trump also called for continued protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

The best way to make prescriptions more affordable is to reform the Food and Drug administration’s approval process. The burdensome regulations benefit large pharmaceutical companies that can afford to navigate the red tape and lock out smaller companies that don’t have the resources to get their lifesaving cures past government regulators. The costs to invent new drugs are staggering. Congress should also remove regulations that keep certain drugs from being sold over the counter, so people can pay out of pocket for the medications they need without going through an insurance company.

Price transparency is a commonsense reform that helps consumers know what they’ll have to pay for medical procedures and drugs before they buy them. When consumers know the price for services rendered, they can shop around for the best deal, which would foster competition and encourage health care providers to lower prices.

On pre-existing conditions, Trump and the Republican Party have made the mistake of accepting the Left’s premise that the only way to help people with pre-existing conditions is by forcing insurance companies to insure them. This defeats the point of health insurance and drives up costs for everyone else.

Conservatives need to go big on pre-existing conditions. President Trump should have called on Congress to free up the market and make health status insurance legal as an alternative to our current system of health insurance.

Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz explained how it would work:

One specific area of insurance that the federal government should leave completely free of regulation is any idea to solve the problem of pre-existing conditions through the marketplace. One proposed solution is health status insurance, broadly popularized by University of Chicago Professor John Cochrane.

These plans would work much like life insurance: Consumers purchase an insurance plan to cover potential changes in their “health status” that would otherwise jack up premiums or make it hard to purchase new coverage. Parents could take out plans for children before they join the workforce — or even unborn babies — at dirt cheap rates. Let’s say Tom and his family have health status insurance. Tom’s daughter develops asthma and his wife is diagnosed with high blood pressure. Their health insurance rates go up. But, health status insurance kicks in to pay the higher premiums. Alternatively, Tom would receive a lump sum payout to be managed in a trust-style account to directly pay the health care costs. He could purchase specific options or riders for varying health anomalies (diabetes, heart disease, cancer). The options are endless.

Health status insurance will encourage insurance companies to offer tailor-made health plans or multi-year contracts that will protect those who later develop chronic conditions. Health insurance will become portable and untethered to employment decisions, a change in health status, relocation, or young adults moving off their parent’s plan.

The current regulatory regime imposed by Obamacare to “protect” people with pre-existing conditions is causing health insurance premiums to go up every year. Health insurance is getting more expensive, not more affordable, and pre-existing conditions regulations are largely to blame.

5) Paid family leave entitlement

Returning to a a campaign promise championed by Ivanka Trump, President Trump called for the creation of a new paid family leave entitlement program.

“I am also proud to be the first president to include in my budget a plan for nationwide paid family leave — so that every new parent has the chance to bond with their newborn child,” Trump said. His proposal was met with loud cheers, with Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Mo., yelling “Yes!” in approval.

Some conservatives support this policy on pro-family grounds, and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has sponsored legislation to pay for this new entitlement by giving parents an option to put a portion of their Social Security benefits towards paternal leave. Though well-intentioned, the policy is a mistake. First, where in the Constitution’s enumerated powers does Congress have the power to pay for paternal leave? Second, who actually believes future administrations will not create a separate funding mechanism for this program once Social Security’s insolvency reaches critical mass? Third, it is not conservative to run up the national debt, and Republican hypocrisy on spending does not justify creating another irresponsible government program.

6) Abortion

After last week’s abortion controversies featuring Democrats in New York and Virginia embracing late-term abortions right up to the point of birth, President Trump told his staff he wanted to speak against this infanticidal extremism during the State of the Union. And so he did:

There could be no greater contrast to the beautiful image of a mother holding her infant child than the chilling displays our nation saw in recent days. Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth. To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb.

Trump is referring to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a bill that would ban abortions after the 20th week of gestation, when scientific evidence suggests the unborn baby can feel pain. This bill passed the Republican-controlled House in 2017 and was defeated in the Senate in 2018.

It is good that Trump wants Congress to keep going on record with this bill to expose the extreme position of Democrats on killing babies. The president should also support an effort by Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., to force a vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in the House and support Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse’s identical legislation in the Senate. On Monday, Democrats blocked Sasse’s bill, which would ban infanticide by requiring health care practitioners to provide medical care to a baby who survives an abortion attempt and is delivered. Trump should encourage Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to force a vote in the Senate and have Democrats go on record with their opposition to an infanticide ban.

The president should also throw his support behind a federal heartbeat bill, which would protect life from the moment of a baby’s first heartbeat. And he should refuse to sign spending legislation that continues federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. (For more from the author of “SOTU Review: The 6 Big Domestic Policies Trump Proposed” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Fourth Democrat Gets Caught up in Virginia Scandals, Knew About Sex Assault Allegations for a Year

/1 Comment/in , /by

By Daily Wire. The series of scandals that have brought Virginia Democrats to their knees over the last week worsened after a new bombshell report was released on Wednesday night that alleges a Democratic lawmaker knew about the sexual assault allegations against Democrat Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax for over a year.

ABC News reports that Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) was made aware of the allegations directly from Fairfax’s accuser, Dr. Vanessa Tyson, “who on Wednesday released a statement detailing the alleged 2004 assault, which took place at the Democratic National Convention in Boston.”

“Allegations of sexual assault need to be taken seriously,” Scott said in a statement to ABC News. “I have known Professor Tyson for approximately a decade and she is a friend. She deserves the opportunity to have her story heard.”

Aides to Scott told ABC News that Tyson told Scott on October 20, 2017 that she was “not a fan” of Fairfax, who at the time was a candidate for Virginia Lieutenant Governor. . .

In December 2017, Tyson allegedly told Scott that Fairfax had a “MeToo allegation,” and over the next month, Scott’s aides learned that Tyson was the alleged victim. (Read more from “Fourth Democrat Gets Caught up in Virginia Scandals, Knew About Sex Assault Allegations for a Year” HERE)

_______________________________________

Vanessa Tyson’s Full Statement on Justin Fairfax

By The New York Times. On the night of Friday, February 1, 2019, I read multiple news accounts indicating that Virginia Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax would likely be elevated to Governor as an immediate result of a scandal involving Governor Ralph Northam. This news flooded me with painful memories, bringing back feelings of grief, shame, and anger that stemmed from an incident with Mr. Fairfax that occurred in July 2004 during the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

I met Mr. Fairfax on July 26, 2004, when he and I were working at the Convention. We struck up a conversation on the first day of the Convention and soon realized we had a mutual friend. We crossed paths occasionally during the first two days and our interactions were cordial, but not flirtatious. We commiserated about our long work hours, and on the afternoon of the third day of the Convention, July 28, 2004, Mr. Fairfax suggested that I get some fresh air by accompanying him on a quick errand to retrieve documents from his room in a nearby hotel. Given our interactions up to that time, I had no reason to feel threatened and agreed to walk with him to his hotel. I stood in the entryway of the room and after he located the documents, he walked over and kissed me. Although surprised by his advance, it was not unwelcome and I kissed him back. He then took my hand and pulled me towards the bed. I was fully clothed in a pantsuit and had no intention of taking my clothes off or engaging in sexual activity. In the back of my mind, I also knew I needed to return to Convention headquarters.

What began as consensual kissing quickly turned into a sexual assault. Mr. Fairfax put his hand behind my neck and forcefully pushed my head towards his crotch. Only then did I realize that he had unbuckled his belt, unzipped his pants, and taken out his penis. He then forced his penis into my mouth. Utterly shocked and terrified, I tried to move my head away, but could not because his hand was holding down my neck and he was much stronger than me. As I cried and gagged, Mr. Fairfax forced me to perform oral sex on him. I cannot believe, given my obvious distress, that Mr. Fairfax thought this forced sexual act was consensual. To be very clear, I did not want to engage in oral sex with Mr. Fairfax and I never gave any form of consent. Quite the opposite. I consciously avoided Mr. Fairfax for the remainder of the Convention and I never spoke to him again.

(Read more from “Vanessa Tyson’s Full Statement on Justin Fairfax” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE