This Bill Finally Frees Main Street From the Grip of Washington

/0 Comments/in , /by

America’s current financial regulatory system, begotten by some of the most liberal minds in this country, has consistently limited the ability of banks to serve their customers.

It has forced community banks to bend to the will of an ever-expanding bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., for nearly a decade.

What was this financial regulatory system that has been so destructive?

The Dodd-Frank Act—a bill passed by Democrats in 2010 that radically increased Washington’s grip on local financial institutions.

In order to encourage the jumpstart of our economy, it is absolutely critical that capital is available to small and medium-sized businesses, something that is not currently possible under Dodd-Frank.

Through outrageous and ill-thought regulations, Democrats created a financial framework that promoted “too big too fail” instead of banishing it to the pages of history forever.

The CHOICE Act that the House of Representatives will take under consideration this week combats this very problem. For the first time in years, small community banks will be able to serve their communities as they once did—without excessive burdens from regulators that stifle growth and restrict the access to capital.

Finally, the American people can take a deep breath knowing that the right legislation has been introduced at the right time.

The CHOICE Act will hold Washington accountable.

For too long, faceless and unelected bureaucrats have maintained a sense of privilege and arrogance that stems from their belief that they know not only what is best for themselves, but what is best for the American people.

In Washington, part of the obligation for those of us who are sent here to represent our communities is to protect economic liberty for those back home.

The American dream is still alive and yet, it has not thrived as it should due to the environment created by the disaster that is Dodd-Frank.

Because a strong and stable financial marketplace is the backbone of our economy, it is necessary that small businesses getting started in a garage and even those businesses expanding to new locations have access to resources, capital, and support that helps turn these dreams into reality.

At some level, legislation like the Financial CHOICE Act is the very reason why hardworking Americans sent their representatives to Washington.

Now, we have a responsibility and an obligation to uphold that trust and work tirelessly to ensure that Americans remain in control of their financial future, not bureaucrats hundreds of miles away. (For more from the author of “This Bill Finally Frees Main Street From the Grip of Washington” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

6 Crimes Special Counsel Might Pursue in Trump-Russia Probe

/0 Comments/in , /by

What ousted FBI Director James Comey tells Congress could set the tone for what his predecessor, now the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, looks into.

But, barring any new bombshells when Comey testifies Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, legal experts identify a few directions the case could go under Robert Mueller’s direction if evidence emerges of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Mueller’s probe could lead to “obstruction of justice charges and possibly form the basis for impeachment,” said Nick Akerman, who served on the teams of two special prosecutors, Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski, during the Watergate investigation.

But Ron Hosko, a former assistant director for the FBI assigned to its Criminal Investigative Division, said he doubts it will go quite that far.

“I don’t see today individual transactions forming a broader criminal conspiracy, which is what Democrats want to see, evidence of knowing agreement,” Hosko, who served under both Mueller and Comey, told The Daily Signal.

“Comparisons to Watergate are way over the top,” Hosko added.

However, Akerman and Hosko agree that certain evidence, if uncovered, could lead to charges against people who work or worked for President Donald Trump, either during the campaign or in the administration.

One chief criticism of the congressional investigations before the Justice Department tapped Mueller is the lack of evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to weaken Hillary Clinton politically or put Trump in the White House.

Commentators on both the right and the left also question what the underlying crime would be. Even some Democrats have said there is no evidence so far of a crime.

The landscape covered by Mueller’s probe includes the actions of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, the emails connected with Clinton’s campaign, and any communication between Trump campaign or transition officials and the Russians.

Here are six laws and potential charges that legal experts say could be brought:

1.) Logan Act

The “heart of the investigation” would be whether Flynn or anyone else violated the Logan Act, said Robert Ray, the independent counsel who completed an investigation of President Bill Clinton.

The law, dating to 1798, prevents unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments that are at odds with the United States.

“Between the election and inauguration, if someone was making promises about foreign policy, whether it’s the president himself or someone working for the president, it could be a crime,” said Ray, now in private practice.

This would require evidence of actual promises, deals, or negotiations.

2.) Cyber Intrusion

According to federal officials, Russia apparently hacked the emails of the Democratic National Committee or the emails of John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, correspondence that ended up on the WikiLeaks site.

If evidence emerges that Trump campaign workers were involved in assisting the Russians, it could tie them to a violation of a statute called Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers, legal experts said.

“This could be a cyber intrusion violation,” said Hosko, now president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund. “There are laws against aiding and abetting hacking.”

3.) Espionage Act

The Espionage Act may apply on two fronts: anonymous government employees’ leaking classified information to damage Trump, or Trump’s talking to Russian officials during a much-publicized Oval Office meeting.

The FBI recently arrested 25-year-old National Security Agency contractor Reality Winner and charged her with illegally mailing intelligence information about Russian interference with the election to a news organization.

Considering other aspects of the probe seem to lack actual evidence, leaks by government employees might be the most direct route to prosecution, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“Leaks of classified material is a federal crime,” von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department lawyer, told The Daily Signal, adding:

But so far in the so-called collusion investigation, there is no evidence of any violation of any federal law that I know of. Similarly, the big to-do over Kushner talking to the Russian ambassador—that is perfectly legitimate and not any violation of federal law. Mueller can certainly investigate leaks.

The Heritage legal expert was referring to Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and one of his top White House aides.

In May, the Trump administration fended off press reports about Trump’s Oval Office meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which sources claimed Trump disclosed intelligence about the Islamic State and aviation safety issues.

A procedure exists for presidents to declassify information, Akerman said, and this action could be prosecutable.

“It could have been a plot beforehand, [such as] ‘I’ll tell you in the light of day and then no one will think I’m in cahoots with you guys,’” said Akerman, now in private practice.

Others point out that the president has the power to decide what is and isn’t classified.

4.) Obstruction of Justice

Comey, during his testimony on Capitol Hill, reportedly will not accuse Trump of trying to obstruct the FBI’s investigation of Flynn.

A Comey memo reportedly noted that after dinner at the White House, Trump told him in a February meeting: “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.”

It would be tough to make Trump’s stating this in a meeting with Comey the basis of an obstruction charge, Hosko said. But it could give Mueller reason to seek all records of communications or behind-the-scenes actions by Trump regarding the FBI’s Flynn probe.

“The president could have been expressing his wishful thinking to Comey,” Hosko said. “If his true intent was to decapitate an investigation, it would be a more troubling issue.”

Under a “unitary executive” view of the law, it would be difficult to charge a president for seeking to shut down an investigation within the executive branch, Ray said.

“It might be constitutional grounds for impeachment, but it’s not obstruction of justice,” he told The Daily Signal.

5.) Foreign Agent Registration Act

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee, has argued that Flynn, a retired Army general, lied on his national security disclosure forms about past work with Russia.

Flynn allegedly worked for entities with ties to Russian and Turkish governments without disclosing the information, as required under the Foreign Agent Registration Act.

Trump ousted Flynn, a campaign adviser, as his national security adviser after three weeks because Flynn had one or more interactions with the Russian ambassador before Trump’s inauguration and then misinformed Vice President Mike Pence about it.

This could be a serious offense, Ray said.

“There could be a charge of making false statements with regard to vetting and financial disclosure forms,” Ray said.

Akerman agreed.

“When you get a security clearance, they instill the fear of God in you to be honest and provide information about contacts; that’s not something you just forget,” Akerman told The Daily Signal.

6.) Campaign Finance Law

The investigation could uncover a campaign finance scandal, wrote Bob Bauer, former White House counsel for President Barack Obama.

“The law prohibits foreign nationals from providing ‘anything of value … in connection with’ an election,” Bauer wrote. “The hacking of the Podesta emails, which were then transmitted to WikiLeaks for posting, clearly had value, and its connection to the election is not disputed.”

Such an in-kind contribution case is “theoretically possible, but would be difficult to prove,” Ray said.

Hosko agreed.

“There is no hint of any Russian money being involved. Trump’s campaign was largely self-funded,” the former assistant FBI director said. “You did have peripheral players such as Michael Flynn, [former Trump campaign manager] Paul Manafort, and [informal Trump adviser] Roger Stone, who supposedly made money from Russians. But you would have to prove that money ended up in the campaign.” (For more from the author of “6 Crimes Special Counsel Might Pursue in Trump-Russia Probe” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

EPA Delays One of the Agency’s Most Expensive Regulations Ever

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Trump administration announced Tuesday evening it would delay the implementation of a smog rule that’s been called one of the costliest clean air regulations ever.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt sent a letter to governors saying there’s “insufficient information” to fully implement the 2015 rule on its current timeline. The rule lowers the national ground-level ozone, or smog, standard from 75 to 70 parts per billion.

Pruitt said states would have an extra year to meet the tightened ozone standard, and the EPA would address concerns over outstanding issues, like background ozone and smog coming in from China and other East Asian countries.

“We share the goal of clean air, a robust economy and stronger, healthier communities,” Pruitt said in a statement.

“We are committed to working with states and local officials to effectively implement the ozone standard in a manner that is supportive of air quality improvement efforts without interfering with local decisions or impeding economic growth,” he said. (For more from the author of “EPA Delays One of the Agency’s Most Expensive Regulations Ever” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Well-Intentioned Bill Could Turn Local Accidents Into Federal Crimes

/0 Comments/in , /by

Senators on Capitol Hill recently introduced the Back the Blue Act of 2017 with the laudable objective of supporting public safety officers.

While that intention is noble, the bill unfortunately omits something crucial: the ancient element of crime known as “mens rea” (Latin for “guilty mind”).

Mens rea distinguishes between tragic accidents, or innocent mistakes, and malicious crimes. It ensures that people are criminally punished only for conscious violations of law or intentional, morally culpable conduct.

The Back the Blue Act of 2017 would make it a federal crime to “kill, or attempt or conspire to kill” any federally funded public safety officer “while that officer is engaged in official duties, or on account of the performance of official duties.”

The bill carries criminal fines and 10 years to life in prison for injuring these officers, and 30 years to life—or the death penalty—if an officer dies.

Thus, the bill criminalizes three separate types of conduct:

1) Killing an officer.

2) Attempting to kill an officer.

3) Conspiring to kill an officer.

The attempt and conspiracy offenses proscribed in the bill are specific intent crimes, meaning that before the government can obtain a conviction, it must prove that a defendant intended to commit the proscribed conduct.

The problem is that the term “to kill” has no intent component. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “kill” as “to cause the death of.”

That stands in sharp contrast to “murder,” which is defined as “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.”

Because the bill does not require that a defendant intend to kill or even know his “victim” was a “federally funded public safety officer,” its severe penalties would apply if someone accidentally crashed into an officer with a bicycle, motorcycle, or car, or unknowingly served him contaminated food, and the officer died.

In short, any tragic accident that resulted in the death of a federally funded public safety officer could trigger severe federal criminal liability up to and including the death penalty.

According to The Economist, accidents are a leading cause of death in the United States, and many officers die each year in traffic-related fatalities (although there is no breakdown as to how many of these were accidental).

We all want to support our brave men and women in blue and other public safety officers, but this bill stretches federal criminal liability just a bit too far.

For comparison, the Blue Lives Matter Act of 2016 failed to pass through the House last year, but would have made it a federal crime “to knowingly cause bodily injury to any person, or attempt to do so, because of the actual or perceived status of the person as a police officer” (emphasis added).

Setting aside the issue of whether such a bill is necessary (intentionally killing a police officer is already a crime that is vigorously enforced in every state), at least the 2016 version did not criminalize accidental conduct.

Perhaps the difference between the two versions was simply an oversight, in which case it should be corrected. While it is likely that federal authorities would not prosecute an individual who accidentally killed a police officer, such things should not be left to chance.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in Staples v. United States (1994), “the requirement of some mens rea for a crime is firmly embedded” in historic common law rules, and “[t]he existence of a mens rea is the rule of, rather than the exception to, the principles of Anglo–American criminal jurisprudence.”

That general rule was perhaps best expressed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who famously observed that “even a dog knows the difference between ‘being stumbled over and being kicked.’”

This Congress should heed the long-held wisdom, expressed by Harvard Law School professor Francis B. Sayre, “that subjecting defendants ‘entirely free from moral blameworthiness to the possibility of prison sentences is revolting to the community sense of justice,’” and “no law which violates this fundamental instinct can long endure.” (For more from the author of “This Well-Intentioned Bill Could Turn Local Accidents Into Federal Crimes” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

REALLY MSM!? It’s Not Terrorism If Trump Says So?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It’s not terrorism if Trump says so … Last night, NBC Nightly News reminded the American people – during an attack against our strongest ally – that Donald Trump is the real enemy. Trump tweeted about the jihadi attack in London, highlighting “fears of a new terror attack” before NBC could “independently confirm.” Note, the president didn’t say it WAS a terror attack – he said there were “fears of a new terror attack.” Instead of just not using Trump’s tweet in their coverage, they went out of their way to attack the president, saying, “Pres. Trump has used Twitter to share news report on London incident. We aren’t relaying president’s retweet, as the info is unconfirmed.” VIVA LA RESISTANCE!

A host on the Boston NBC station … A host (whose program I have been on) stood up for the network, saying it’s because they can’t trust, under their ethics, unconfirmed information from Donald Trump. Which is odd, because at last check, Brian Williams still worked for NBC News.

Media hate Trump’s solution … Donald Trump is the duly elected president of the United States, under the process outlined in the Constitution. As such, he is responsible for national security. Unsurprisingly, after yet another jihadi attack, Trump shared his solution for preventing them in the U.S.: the travel ban. That the two are related seems to be too much for Ben Jacobs, who covers U.S. politics for U.K.-based Guardian. Even more so for Jon Passantino, the deputy news director for BuzzFeed, who tweeted, “Trump immediately uses London tragedy for political purposes.” Or, you know, maybe just to outline his plan to combat radical Islamic jihad in the United States.

ALL ABOUT THE TRUMP

Main story is Trump, not jihad … Instead of focusing on the media’s blatant bias in the wake of the London jihad attack, CNN media “critic” Brian Stelter had Carl Bernstein on to discuss how they don’t like President Trump’s travel ban. Here watch.

MSNBC scared of overreaction … CRTV’s Steven Crowder highlighted some of the absurdity of the leftist media. Crowder shared video of MSNBC saying that we shouldn’t overreact to terror. Note on the chyron it also says a “van plowed into pedestrians.” Just like with guns, it’s the van that’s the real actor, not the person controlling the van.

WHAT HAVE YOU SEEN?

It’s impossible for one person to highlight all of the media insanity when there’s a story like this. That’s why I rely on you to help me out. Let me know what you’ve seen by emailing me at [email protected].

(For more from the author of “REALLY MSM!? It’s Not Terrorism If Trump Says So?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sessions Is Said to Have Offered to Resign

/0 Comments/in , /by

Attorney General Jeff Sessions offered to resign in recent weeks as he told President Trump he needed the freedom to do his job, according to two people who were briefed on the discussion.

The president turned down the offer, but on Tuesday, the White House declined to say whether Mr. Trump still had confidence in his attorney general . . .

Mr. Spicer’s remarks came after The New York Times reported that Mr. Trump had vented intermittently about Mr. Sessions since the attorney general recused himself from any Russia-related investigations conducted by the Justice Department. Mr. Trump has fumed to allies and advisers ever since, suggesting that Mr. Sessions’s decision was needless. (Read more from “Sessions Is Said to Have Offered to Resign” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Seattle Passes Massive ‘Job-Killing’ Tax on Sugary Drinks

/0 Comments/in , /by

Officials in Seattle passed the second largest Soda Tax in the U.S. Monday in an effort to close “the food security gap” and dissuade residents from buying sugary drinks.

The Seattle City Council approved the measure in a 7-1 vote, placing a 1.75 cents per ounce tax on beverages containing sugar. Councilman Tim Burgess, who sponsored the tax after Democratic Mayor Ed Murray proposed the idea in February, argues soda and other drinks are a threat to public health.

“Liquid sugar has zero nutritional benefits,” he said, according to The Washington Post.

The tax will be implemented at the distribution level, meaning that retailers will likely be forced to pass on the extra cost to consumers. It is second only to Boulder, Colo., as the city with the highest soda tax in the U.S.

“The City Council turned its back today on small business owners and working families with this job-killing tax that will drive up costs and further increase income inequality in Seattle,” said a statement from the business coalition Keep Seattle Livable for All. “Those who can afford this tax the least will be hurt the most.” (Read more from “Seattle Passes Massive ‘Job-Killing’ Tax on Sugary Drinks” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Spicer Outlasts Stephanopoulos in White House Press Room

/0 Comments/in , /by

Critics said he was out of his element in conducting White House press briefings, but he steadily continued for nearly five months into the new presidential administration, frequently having a rocky ride and clashes with the press. Finally, the president ordered a shakeup, and moved him to another job.

This was the Clinton administration in 1993, and the briefer was White House communications director George Stephanopoulos, who had shared time sparring with reporters with press secretary Dee Dee Myers.

As of Wednesday afternoon, 24 years later, President Donald Trump’s White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, will have outlasted Stephanopoulos at the lectern in the briefing room.

When Spicer showed up 30 minutes late for Tuesday’s briefing, though, reporters had reason to wonder whether he would be the one taking questions.

For months, there’s been plenty of speculation that Trump might move Spicer, known for dramatic tangles with reporters, to another job. This notion gained more steam after White House communications director Mike Dubke resigned in late May, leaving the position open.

Deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders fueled some of that speculation Monday, giving a less than direct answer on their futures after a reporter asked, “Where is Sean?”

After some give and take, in which Sanders noted, “He’s here today,” the same reporter asked: “Has his position changed, then?”

Sanders answered: “It’s probably upgraded at this point, given that we don’t have a communications director.”

The reporter, April Ryan of American Urban Radio Network, followed up: “So you will be the new press secretary here?”

Sanders replied:

I did not say that at all. I’m just filling in for the day, April. There are a lot of demands on his schedule, particularly given the fact that there’s not a communications director, and this is part of my job as well. And when I’m needed, I’ll step in.

If Spicer is elevated to communications director, he actually would be taking on a larger role compared with Stephanopoulos, who became a political adviser in Bill Clinton’s White House and reportedly moved to a smaller office. At the time, Stephanopoulos was 32. Today, Spicer is 45.

But, if Trump makes Spicer both communications director and press secretary, the former Republican National Committee communications official could hit the same problems Stephanopoulos had in 1993, said George Condon, now a White House reporter for National Journal.

Condon, then a reporter for Copley News Service, was president of the White House Correspondents’ Association during the shakeup in the early months of the Clinton administration.

“He made the mistake that they all make at first of not realizing how much work it is to brief. You can’t do both jobs and he was determined to do both jobs,” Condon told The Daily Signal, recalling what happened with Stephanopoulos:

A communications director is supposed to be big picture, making sure the government is speaking with the same voice, the agencies, the overall communications strategy, that’s a lot of work. Just preparing for the briefing takes several hours every day. Stephanopoulos got clobbered in his first briefing. He just got clobbered.

“He liked the attention of briefing,” Condon said of Stephanopoulos. “He liked the spotlight. But he wasn’t very good at it because you can’t do both jobs.”

The communications director position began with the Nixon administration in the 1970s, Condon noted.

“The only administration that tried to combine the duties is Clinton, and it was a miserable failure. And if they try to do that here, it will be again,” Condon said. “You can’t have two voices in the administration. That’s problematic. If you want Sarah to do it, pick Sarah as press secretary.”

For a time, Clinton in effect had two functioning press secretaries, Condon suggested, and that didn’t work—even without today’s Twitter factor.

Stephanopoulos’ final press briefing was June 4, 1993, according to the American Presidency Project at the University of California Santa Barbara.

He would continue to work for Clinton before taking a job as a commentator on ABC News in 1997, after Clinton’s re-election, and then becoming an anchor for the network’s Sunday morning program, “This Week.”

Today, Stephanopoulos, 56, is ABC’s chief news anchor and chief political correspondent and co-anchor of “Good Morning America” as well as host of “This Week.”

Clinton, a Democrat, hired senior adviser David Gergen, who had worked for Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, both Republicans.

On June 7, Gergen announced a shuffle in which Mark D. Gearan replaced Stephanopoulos as communications director.

Stephanopoulos also became a senior adviser to the president. Myers remained press secretary, but with an expanded role so she was in charge of briefings.

The New York Times, in a story by Gwen Ifill, reported at the time:

[Gergen] ordered the reopening of the door linking the White House briefing room with the offices occupied by Administration communications officials. The closing of the door in January had sent relations between the reporters and Mr. Clinton off to a bad start …

Two weeks ago, the briefing room had been a hostile place, full of questions and strained answers about Presidential haircuts, travel office dismissals and razor-thin victories in the House. That changed for at least an hour today as Mr. Gergen took a break from moving into his office to begin a new effort at outreach.

“When they brought in Gergen and he shoved Stephanopoulos off the briefing, Dee Dee [Myers] really came into her own after that. But before that, Jan. 20 through May 30, were terrible,” Condon said.

Putting the timeline aside, Spicer’s early months might be more comparable to the tenure of Myers or to that of President George W. Bush’s second press secretary, Scott McClellen, said John Gizzi, a veteran Washington correspondent now covering the White House for Newsmax.

One reason Stephanopoulos was doing so many briefings concurrently with Myers is because of her “poor performance,” Gizzi said.

Eventually, the Clinton White House made another change by naming Mike McCurry as press secretary in January 1995, two years after Clinton assumed the presidency.

“Mike McCurry came in and he was considered the gold standard until Tony Snow came along [under George W. Bush],” Gizzi said, adding:

McClellen was a very good person. He was not always brought into the confidence of the president or Karl Rove, and he said so in his book, which cost him their friendship. He was a good man and an honest person and well intentioned. But when you don’t tell someone things and they go out and they are contradicted by events, it hurts.

Press secretaries do have a tendency to grow on the job, Gizzi said.

“Josh Earnest, because he was the No. 2 [as deputy press secretary], was ready for the top job when he came in,” Gizzi said of President Barack Obama’s third and final press secretary. “But if it weren’t for him filling in on those briefings the way he did, I don’t think he would have been effective. Dana Perino filled in for Tony Snow when he was ill, and then when he finally retired. She was ready for the [press secretary] job. So, it doesn’t hurt to play in the minor leagues before you go pro.” (For more from the author of “Spicer Outlasts Stephanopoulos in White House Press Room” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Yes, America Is in the Midst of a Civil War

/0 Comments/in , /by

Writers never know when something they write will strike a nerve—or, in the common phrase of the internet, “go viral.”

Yet my last column, “Why Conservatives Still Attack Trump,” did both. Aside from being reprinted on almost every conservative website, Newsweek published the column, and The New York Times quoted it.

More importantly, many major conservative writers responded to it, mostly in disagreement.

It is interesting that the column elicited so much attention. Maybe, like the man who bit the dog, an articulate case by a mainstream conservative in support of the president is so rare that people felt a need to publish it and respond to it.

Whatever the reason, I feel compelled to respond to some of the disagreements.

Before doing so, I want to note the respectful tone that permeated virtually every one of the disagreeing columns. We have enough cannibals on the left without conservatives eating each other up.

After reading the responses, I feel confident in saying that they confirmed my primary thesis: Anti-Trump conservatives do not believe that Americans are fighting what I call the Second Civil War, while pro-Trump conservatives do.

Indeed, Jonah Goldberg in National Review said as much. He denied that we are in the midst of a civil war on two grounds: One is that it is not violent, and the other is that we are fighting a “culture war,” not a civil war.

Whenever I write about the subject, I almost always note that this Second Civil War is not violent. I never thought that the word “war” must always include violence.

The word is frequently used in nonviolent contexts: the war against cancer, the war between the sexes, the war against tobacco, the Cold War, and myriad other nonviolent wars.

Perhaps Goldberg would respond that he did not write that all wars are violent, only that all civil wars are violent. But if there are nonviolent wars, there can be nonviolent civil wars.

Nevertheless, what most disturbs me is his second argument—articulated in various ways by most of those who disagreed with me—that there is simply no civil war. And many repeated the universal belief among Never-Trumpers that a Hillary Clinton victory would not have been a catastrophe.

My response is that “culture war” is much too tepid a term for what is going on now. Maybe anti-Trump conservatives are fighting a “culture war,” but the left is not.

The left is working to undo the American Revolution. It’s very close to doing so.

Of all people, one would think Goldberg would understand this. He is the author of what I consider to be a modern classic, “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Change.”

His book leads to one conclusion: We are fighting fascism. How is that not a civil war? When you fight fascism, you are not merely fighting a “culture war.”

So, shouldn’t the primary role of a conservative be to vanquish leftism? To me, that means strongly supporting the Republican president of the United States, who has staffed his Cabinet with conservatives and already won substantial conservative victories.

As I suggested in my previous column, conservatives would have been thrilled if any Republican president had achieved what Trump has at this point in his administration.

“But what about Trump’s character?” nearly all my critics ask. Or, as John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary Magazine, tweeted, “For Dennis Prager, who spent 40 years advocating for a moral frame for American politics, to argue as he argued today is, may I say, ironic.”

First, I have indeed dedicated much of my life to advocating for morality—for ethical monotheism as the only way to achieve a moral world; for raising moral children (as opposed to concentrating, for example, on raising “brilliant” children); and for the uniquely great Judeo-Christian moral synthesis developed by the Founding Fathers of America.

But I have never advocated electing moral politicians.

Of course, I prefer people of good character in political office. But 30 years ago, I wrote an essay titled “Adultery and Politicians” in which I argued that what political leaders do is more important than their character.

To cite but one of an endless list of examples, I would prefer an adulterous president (like John F. Kennedy) who supported Israel than a faithful family man (like Jimmy Carter) who was an anti-Zionist.

Second, as a religious Jew, I learned from the Bible that God himself chose morally compromised individuals—like King David, who had a man killed in order to cover up the adultery he committed with the man’s wife, and the prostitute Rahab, who was instrumental in helping the Jews conquer Canaan—to accomplish some greater good.

(And, for the record, I am not suggesting that God chose Donald Trump.)

Third, though I listed his moral defects in column after column during the primaries, I believe that Trump is a better man than his critics maintain. I see no evidence, to cite one example, that he is a misogynist.

His comment about famous and powerful men being able to do what they want with women was

a) said in private—and we are fools if we assess people by their private comments (Harry Truman, a great president, frequently used “kike” in private comments about Jews);

b) not a statement about anything he had actually done;

c) not misogynistic, and

d) often true.

Fourth, even if he were as morally defective as his critics maintain, my response is this: Trump’s character is less morally significant than defeating the left.

If the left wins, America loses. And if America loses, evil will engulf the world. (For more from the author of “Yes, America Is in the Midst of a Civil War” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

I’m an Attorney General Asking Supreme Court to Uphold Trump’s Travel Ban. Here’s Why.

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Tuesday, I filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold President Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily pausing the entry of foreign nationals from six terror-prone counties.

Supreme Court review is needed because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit recently ruled against the valid executive order. I am leading a multistate coalition asking the Supreme Court to permit the president to exercise his lawful authority to protect the homeland.

What the 4th Circuit completely missed is that the executive order is a tailored response to a very real threat to our national security.

A pause on entry from countries with heightened security concerns—such as Libya, where authorities arrested suspects linked to the horrific attack in Manchester—is justified to ensure that new arrivals are thoroughly vetted.

Liberal activists are upset that Trump is keeping his promise to secure our border, protect our country, and keep Americans safe from acts of terror.

Unfortunately, it seems that some federal judges, like the majority of the court that opined against the president’s executive order, are now substituting their “politically desired outcome” for the law, to quote dissenting Judge Paul Niemeyer.

The multistate brief that I filed shows courts have long recognized that the federal government has the power to exclude aliens.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly described the ability to refuse the admission of aliens into our country as a core federal prerogative, which is “inherent in sovereignty” and necessary “for defending the country against foreign encroachments and dangers.”

Moreover, Congress clearly vests the executive branch with the statutory authority to exclude aliens.

8 U.S.C. § 1182 authorizes the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions which he may deem to be appropriate.”

There are many prior incidents of administrations barring entry of aliens based on their nationality. Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama used the exact same statutory authority claimed by Trump to refuse admission to aliens from Sudan, Sierra Leone, Venezuela, and Libya.

Federal law makes it plain that the power to exclude is subject only to the president’s finding “that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

That requirement is easily met here. Indeed, the Obama administration previously identified the six countries covered by the Trump executive order as national security concerns.

It is equally clear under Supreme Court precedent that courts have no business overriding the president’s use of full federal authority to deny classes of nonresident aliens into the United States.

Simply put, nonresident aliens who have never set foot on American soil do not possess rights under the United States Constitution regarding entry into this country.

The president’s predecessor had years to strengthen the vetting process. He failed to do so and therefore opened the United States to the types of attacks executed in Germany, France, Belgium, and England.

Had Obama taken the threat seriously, the temporary pause in entry called for in the executive order may not have been necessary.

For years, Texas has been concerned about refugees and immigrants coming into the state from countries whose governments are official sponsors of terrorism. We asked our federal government for information so that Texans were not left in the dark about the individuals placed in our neighborhoods.

But our pleas to the Obama administration to ensure proper vetting fell on deaf ears.

We finally have a president who is serious about securing our borders and keeping Americans safe. It is widely accepted that terrorist attacks are the product of networks that stretch across borders.

Trump’s executive order on foreign entry will allow the time necessary to shore up our nation’s screening procedures and help prevent bloodthirsty extremists, like those who aided and abetted the attacks in Manchester, from infiltrating our homeland.

Trump promised in his oath of office to protect our democracy. His travel ban delivers on that promise. As attorney general of Texas, I fully support his administration’s commitment to defend this action all the way to the Supreme Court. (For more from the author of “I’m an Attorney General Asking Supreme Court to Uphold Trump’s Travel Ban. Here’s Why.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.