Los Angeles Voters Right to Reject Anti-Housing Ballot Measure

/0 Comments/in , /by

The cost of living in Southern California dodged a bullet on Tuesday when Los Angeles voters rejected ballot measure “S.”

The measure would have made it much more difficult to build any new housing in America’s second-largest city.

Zoning laws and building restrictions rarely make national headlines, but they impose a substantial barrier to new investment, and new investment has been the missing link in the slow-growth economy of the 2010s.

Housing in California is already so expensive that tens of thousands of low-income residents leave the state annually for cheaper climes.

Heritage Foundation research on the costs of local land use regulation estimated that average Angelenos would save $94 a month on rent if the city adopted less restrictive housing regulations. Instead, they were tempted to go in the opposite direction.

The “Yes on S” campaign, which favored extreme restrictions on new construction, used the motto “Save our Neighborhoods.” Strangely, the campaign received most of its financial support from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Labor unions and property developers opposed the measure.

Given the persistently high demand for living in sunny L.A., restricting supply in that way would have raised prices substantially.

The neighborhoods might have been “saved” in the sense that they would look cosmetically similar, but the restriction of supply would have pushed prices up rapidly in previously working-class neighborhoods. Low-income renters and retirees would be priced out.

San Francisco has already gone down the anti-building path. The result is that more than half of homes in the Bay Area now cost over $1 million.

Tokyo, by contrast, has shown how to maintain affordability, even in a big city. By maintaining strong individual property rights, Tokyo’s policymakers have kept housing costs basically constant despite strong demand.

The defeat of Measure S is also good news for wages and job creation. Without new investment, jobs cannot be created nor wages increased.

Since half of business investment is in buildings—those factories and offices need to go somewhere, after all—Measure S would have made it more difficult to create jobs in L.A.

Free marketers and affordability advocates worked together to defeat Measure S. Perhaps they can go further next time and roll back some of the restrictions that have made L.A. so expensive in the last 30 years. (For more from the author of “Los Angeles Voters Right to Reject Anti-Housing Ballot Measure” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Conservatives Find Willing Negotiating Partner in Trump, Not in Speaker Paul Ryan, on Obamacare Repeal

/0 Comments/in , /by

Conservatives in the House and Senate may have come out swinging against the House GOP’s plan to replace Obamacare, but the skeptical lawmakers have stressed that on the future of Obamacare, they’re willing to negotiate.

So far, conservatives seem to have found a willing negotiating partner in President Donald Trump, though the president and his administration have endorsed the House Republican leadership’s Obamacare replacement bill.

But the House’s most powerful Republican, Speaker Paul Ryan, and his deputies appear less willing to play ball with the lower chamber’s right flank.

Soon after two House committees on Monday evening released the text of the highly anticipated health care plan, the American Health Care Act, Trump and top administration officials began courting support from conservative lawmakers and outside groups.

Their target: the members of the roughly 40-member House Freedom Caucus and conservative organizations such as The Heritage Foundation and Americans for Prosperity.

The charm offensive has been ongoing and swift.

Vice President Mike Pence met Tuesday with House Republicans, including members of the conservative Freedom Caucus, to discuss the legislation.

Then, Wednesday afternoon, Trump summoned leaders of key conservative groups who strongly oppose the bill—The Heritage Foundation, its sister organization Heritage Action for America, Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, and Tea Party Patriots—to talk about the Obamacare replacement plan.

And in a further attempt to gin up support for the proposal, Trump invited skeptical Freedom Caucus members to a night of bowling at the White House next week.

The efforts are part of the White House’s full-court press to get legislation that both repeals and replaces Obamacare, at least in large part, across the finish line.

And the Freedom Caucus is the key faction for the White House to sway.

The lawmakers oppose the timeline for phasing out Obamacare’s expanded eligibility for Medicaid, which the leadership proposal rolls back in 2020, and also creation of advanceable, refundable tax credits based on age to help Americans buy health insurance.

“The first thing Republicans are bringing forward is a piece of legislation that we’re going to put on a Republican president’s desk that says repeal [Obamacare], but keeps Medicaid expansion and actually expands it, that keeps some of the tax increases,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told reporters Tuesday at a press conference.

“That is not what we promised the American people we were going to do,” the former Freedom Caucus chairman said.

Instead, Jordan, along with Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, and other conservative lawmakers have stressed that the vehicle for Obamacare’s repeal already exists: the 2015 bill to dismantle the health care law’s key provisions that passed both chambers of Congress but was vetoed by President Barack Obama.

Though conservatives ideally would like to see GOP leaders bring up the 2015 bill once again—Jordan and Paul actually introduced that same legislation this week in their respective chambers—they’re not opposed to negotiating.

“This is the beginning of the negotiation,” Paul said at the press conference Tuesday. “The House Freedom Caucus’ power and the power of several conservatives in the Senate is to withhold our support and to make it better. If they have 218 votes, we won’t get any change.”

In the House, the Obamacare replacement plan needs 218 votes, a majority, to pass. So Ryan can’t afford to lose more than 19 votes.

Conservatives already have attempted to use the legislative process to tweak the bill’s phaseout of the Medicaid expansion.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, a Freedom Caucus member, and Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., introduced amendments in the House Energy and Commerce Committee to freeze new enrollment in Medicaid expansion at the enhanced federal matching rate—95 percent for 2017, with a decrease to 90 percent for 2020 and beyond—at the end of this year.

The current plan phases out the Medicaid expansion in 2020. Until then, states would still be able to enroll residents with a federal matching rate of 90 percent.

Beginning in 2020, new Medicaid enrollees would receive the traditional federal matching rate, an average of 57 percent.

Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., also a Freedom Caucus member, introduced an amendment instituting a work requirement for childless adults who are on Medicaid.

Both amendments received the support of the 170-member Republican Study Committee, a group of lawmakers who tend not to be as conservative as those in the small Freedom Caucus.

But Barton withdrew his amendment from the Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday, after the panel held a 27-hour markup of the Obamacare replacement plan.

So far, it’s not only conservatives who are willing to negotiate. Leaders of conservative groups who met Wednesday with Trump said he, too, seems willing to play ball.

“I’m encouraged because the president is listening to those of us who have concerns about the American Health Care Act, and because he understands that we want to help him keep his promise to repeal Obamacare and to prevent health insurance prices from skyrocketing further,” Jenny Beth Martin, president of Tea Party Patriots, told The Daily Signal.

Martin was one of the conservative leaders who met with Trump and other aides in the Oval Office.

The Tea Party Patriots leader said Trump didn’t make any commitments to changing parts of the bill that conservatives dislike, such as the Medicaid expansion or tax credits, but instead listened to what they had to say.

Instead, Martin said Trump outlined a three-pronged approach to repealing and replacing Obamacare: pass the American Health Care Act, take administrative action through Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, then pass more legislation to complete reform of the health care system.

Trump told the conservative leaders that many of their concerns could be addressed in step three. Ryan has been saying much the same.

Conservative groups have come out in fierce opposition to the House GOP leadership’s Obamacare replacement plan.

But after meeting with Trump, Martin and other leaders, among them FreedomWorks President Adam Brandon, struck a more positive note on the direction of the bill.

“Republicans right now have a tremendous opportunity,” Martin said. “I’m going to keep a little bit of a hopeful, optimistic spirit that they will take advantage of the opportunity the American people have given them.”

In a statement released Wednesday, Brandon called the conversation with Trump “constructive.”

“The concerns that have been raised by Sen. Paul, Sen. Lee, and members of the House Freedom Caucus are real, and we believe that we can negotiate on these provisions, address them in a substantive way, and get to ‘yes’ on this bill and throw Obamacare into the dustbin of history,” Brandon said.

Though conservatives may have a willing negotiator in Trump, Ryan appears to be digging in.

The House speaker has maintained the position that lawmakers constructed the replacement plan over a year’s time, and with ample input from his fellow Republicans.

“This bill was worked on from January to June last year so we could offer our constituents and the American people in our Better Way agenda what we could replace Obamacare with,” Ryan, referencing House Republicans’ reform agenda, told reporters Wednesday. “We ran on it all through the election, and now we’ve translated it through legislation.”

The speaker questioned whether any of the changes conservatives want to see now would pass muster in the Senate.

Republicans are using a budget tool called reconciliation to fast-track Obamacare repeal and replacement through the Senate, where it can pass with 51 votes rather than the 60 normally needed to end debate.

But strict rules govern the budget reconciliation process, and the tool can be used only on bills that change taxes, spending, or the deficit.

Because reconciliation is limited to legislation addressing fiscal policy, Democrats will be ready to challenge any provision of the bill they can argue runs afoul of the Byrd rule.

The Byrd rule was adopted in 1985 to ensure reconciliation is only being used to adjust the budget or reduce the deficit.

Ryan argued that any changes to the bill—including those conservatives urge—could jeopardize its fast-track or “privileged” status and make it subject to a filibuster by Democrats.

“The reconciliation tool is pretty tight,” the speaker said. “That’s why you see a lot of confusion and frustration, understandably so.

“If we put things in this bill that take that privilege off of it, so it’s not reconciliation, [the Senate] won’t even vote on it,” the Wisconsin Republican said. “They will filibuster it, and they won’t even vote on it.”

The House’s No. 2 Republican, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, also cast doubt on whether GOP leaders were willing to negotiate.

“I think everybody should get on board,” McCarthy said on “Fox and Friends” on Thursday morning. “This is one of three phases. If you want to see Obamacare replaced, this is the best opportunity to do it. If you want to see replacement that lowers the premiums and actually gives greater quality of care, this is the only option we have going forward.”

But in its current form, the GOP’s proposal is already dead on arrival in the Senate.

Just after it was released, Paul and Lee announced their opposition to the bill.

And pushback from other Republican senators has begun to trickle out since then, including Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who took to Twitter to urge Republican leaders to “start over.”

If more than two senators oppose the legislation in the upper chamber, the Obamacare replacement plan fails.

Despite the growing opposition from Senate Republicans, Ryan has continued to make a hard sell for the replacement plan.

“We have been waiting seven years to do this. The time is now,” the speaker said. “This is the closest we’ll ever get to repealing and replacing Obamacare.” (For more from the author of “Conservatives Find Willing Negotiating Partner in Trump, Not in Speaker Paul Ryan, on Obamacare Repeal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

TSA’s New Groping Process So Invasive, They’re Warning Police to Prepare for Complaints

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Something ominous is taking place at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) right now, having to do with a more aggressive version of the already invasive pat-down method. The TSA is so certain their new groping method will offend that they have taken action to warn police ahead of time that they will undoubtedly be receiving complaints.

The TSA — one of America’s most corrupt and incompetent agencies whose ostensible job is fighting terrorism — is apparently so unsatisfied with the mere ability to strip search babies, remove colostomy bags, beat up blind cancer patients, and fondle your genitalia, that this week they announced a more invasive physical pat-down.

Taking note of their increased ability to grope anyone who wishes to fly on an airplane, the agency expects passengers to consider the examination unusual.

In fact, as Bloomberg reports,the TSA decided to inform local police in case anyone calls to report an “abnormal” federal frisking, according to a memo from an airport trade association obtained by Bloomberg News. The physical search, for those selected to have one, is what the agency described as a more “comprehensive” screening, replacing five separate kinds of pat-downs it previously used.

“Passengers who have not previously experienced the now standardized pat-down screening may not realize that they did in fact receive the correct procedure, and may ask our partners, including law enforcement at the airport, about the procedure,” TSA spokesman Bruce Anderson wrote March 3 in an email, describing why the agency notified police.

The fact that the TSA is alerting police to the fact that there will likely be an increase in complaints is bad enough. However, their vague details about the newly enhanced sexual assault with the fronts of their hands leave the imagination open for the worst.

On its website, the TSA says employees “use the back of the hands for pat-downs over sensitive areas of the body. In limited cases, additional screening involving a sensitive area pat-down with the front of the hand may be needed to determine that a threat does not exist.”

“Due to this change, TSA asked FSDs [field security directors] to contact airport law enforcement and brief them on the procedures in case they are notified that a passenger believes a [TSA employee] has subjected them to an abnormal screening practice,” Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA) wrote

As the Free Thought Project has pointed out countless times, the TSA has been caught in a myriad of criminal activities — including everything from massive drug trafficking conspiracies to brutal beat downs. Granting this already despicable group of cronies the ability to further dehumanize Americans for the facade of safety is nothing short of irresponsible and tyrannical.

Laughably, the ACI-NA is justifying these enhanced pat-downs by claiming TSA agents aren’t intelligent enough to remember all the procedures.

The pat-down change is “intended to reduce the cognitive burden on [employees] who previously had to choose from various pat-down procedures depending on the type of screening lane,” the ACI-NA wrote in its notice, as reported by Bloomberg.

Now, instead of a dimwitted TSA agent fumbling to remember what pat-down to do in which lane, they can just pull the person off to a secret room and have their way with the front of their hands. Thanks, America!

Of course, when they were pressed with questions in regards to their new molestation techniques, the TSA said they couldn’t comment because “knowing our specific procedures could aid those who wish to do travelers harm in evading our measures.”

To the average American who buys into the ‘terrorists hate our freedom’ propaganda, this move by the TSA to grant them the legal ability to grope themselves and their children, will be mostly accepted. However, to those of us who pay attention and realize that the TSA has a 95% failure rate at stopping anything from coming through, as well as being a massively corrupt and predatory organization, this move is seen for what it actually is — conditioning for the police state. (For more from the author of “TSA’s New Groping Process So Invasive, They’re Warning Police to Prepare for Complaints” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

5 Facts You Need to Know About Hawaii’s Unhinged Lawsuit Against Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Here we go again. In response to President Trump’s rewritten travel moratorium, the state of Hawaii is suing to block it.

Here are some key takeaways from the Aloha State’s complaint:

1. They’re still going after Trump’s campaign promises

Literally the first allegations against President Trump have to do with the things he said on the campaign trail, rather than the executive order itself, which the 9th Circuit dangerously invoked in its ruling on the previous executive order.

“President Trump repeatedly campaigned on the promise that he would ban Muslim immigrants and refugees from entering the United States,” reads the document, before listing specific instances, “particularly from Syria, and maintained the same rhetoric after he was elected.”

It goes on to allege: “Within a week of being sworn in, President Trump acted upon his ominous campaign promises to restrict Muslim immigration, curb refugee admissions, and prioritize non-Muslim refugees.”

Once again, even if an executive order contains nothing about banning Muslims, it apparently becomes a ‘Muslim ban’ when someone says mean things.

2. It deceptively sources and presents its information

In an attempt to show a supposedly-negligible effect of the moratorium, the complaint cites a report from the Cato Institute, deceptively alleging that “not a single fatal terrorist attack has been perpetrated in the United States by a national of one of these seven countries since at least 1975.”

The operative word here is “fatal.” Luckily, nobody was killed by the 72 individuals from the original seven (now six) countries convicted on terrorism charges since the September 11 attacks alone.

3. The personal injuries listed in the case include someone’s mother-in-law

One of the named plaintiffs, Ismail Elshikh, PhD — the Imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii — is claiming injury because his non-citizen mother-in-law can’t come from Egypt to visit.

“The new Executive Order will prevent Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law from obtaining a visa to visit or reunite with her family in Hawai‘I,” reads the document. “Under the new Executive Order, however, Dr. Elshikh fears that his mother-in-law will, once again, be unable to “enter” the country under Section 2(c) of the Executive Order. The family is devastated.”

Since when does even a U.S. citizen have a Constitutional right to get a visit from his non-citizen mother-in-law?

The complaint also makes the same claims about members of Elsikh’s mosque, who now supposedly “live in forced separation from those family and friends.” Apparently, in Elshikh’s mind, the travel moratorium also precludes people from leaving the country as well.

4. There’s a lot about feelings going on here

Even though the moratorium very clearly isn’t a Muslim ban by its language, one of the reasons Hawaii is suing is because Elsshikh’s family and mosque feels like it is.

So things become Establishment Clause violations when someone’s feelings get hurt? When did that happen?

Dr. Elshikh feels that, as a result of the new executive order, there is now a favored and disfavored religion the state, He also claims that members of his family here in the U.S. are “deeply affected” by the order, which allegedly “conveys to them a message that their own country would discriminate against individuals who share their ethnicity.”

Wait, is this supposed to be a Muslim ban or an Egyptian Arab ban? Religion isn’t race, folks.

5. Hawaii is affected because … reasons?

Citing many of the same arguments as the last go-round, Hawaii’s lawyers also argued that the order has “profound effects on the State as a whole.”

The claims of injury against the state of Hawaii are especially laughable. According to the document, the injuries include not being able to accept students from the zones into the University of Hawaii and, “More broadly, the new Executive Order means that Hawai‘i will be unable to honor the commitments to nondiscrimination and diversity embodied in Case the State’s Constitution, laws, and policies.”

Let’s just forget for a moment that the Constitution sets Congress as the sole arbiter of U.S. immigration policy and that Congress has passed federal statute granting the president the ability to shut down immigration for national security reasons; Hawaii’s feelings are hurt, so their public university and legislature should set immigration policy instead?

So here we are again. The fact that the exercise executive power is backed up by 200 years of law, precedent, and the Constitution goes out the window apparently doesn’t matter if you hurt someone’s feelings.

But this should come as no surprise. As admirable as the intention was to rewrite the order to stand up to scrutiny (albeit with the mistake of taking Iraq off the list), there was no way to write this to avoid a situation like this. And Hawaii is in the (surprise!) 9th federal circuit, meaning the same backflip-cutting court that produced last month pile of jurisprudential drivel will have yet another chance to rule on the same and similar nonsense arguments.

Even in situations where the president has clear authority — as he does in this one — he will have to scale a wall of black robes and activist decisions at nearly every turn. Unless Congress does as it has before and limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts on issues like these, the administration should expect 3.75 more years of similar rewrites. (For more from the author of “5 Facts You Need to Know About Hawaii’s Unhinged Lawsuit Against Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

BACKLASH: This Is How to Kill RyanCare, Says One Conservative Group

/0 Comments/in , /by

Conservative groups are now campaigning for the defeat of the American Health Care Act, the bill introduced by House Republican leadership to allegedly repeal and replace Obamacare.

Heritage Action labeled the bill “bad policy.” FreedomWorks called it “Obamacare-lite.” And the Club for Growth said it is a “warmed over substitute for government-run healthcare.”

Senate Conservatives Action, the political arm of the Senate Conservatives Fund, is urging voters to contact their representatives to oppose “RyanCare” (or, “Obamacare 2.0”) and demand full repeal of Obamacare.

“The truth is that RyanCare keeps Obamacare’s most expensive coverage mandates,” SCF President Ken Cuccinelli writes. “[I]t keeps much of Obamacare’s costly Medicaid expansion, it continues to impose penalties on people who don’t keep their coverage, and it continues to provide government subsidies using a new entitlement program.”

After campaigning on full ACA overhaul for years, and noting that Congress managed to place a full repeal bill on President Obama’s desk in 2015, SCA notes GOP leadership could only come up with “minor changes” to the ACA.

Conservatives such as Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. (A, 92%) and certain members of the House Freedom Caucus are urging Congress to, first, pass the 2015 repeal bill, and then move forward with a replacement bill from there.

“The sad, but unavoidable, fact is that RyanCare will not lower costs and improve access to health coverage, but it will cause Republicans to own the disaster that follows,” Cuccinelli writes, calling voters to action:

According to Senate Conservatives Action, only 20 to 25 Republicans in the House of Representatives and three to five Republicans in the Senate are needed to scrap RINOcare and send GOP leadership back to the drawing board on a true Obamacare repeal conservatives can get behind.

SCA provided the contact information for the following 20 members of Congress and urged voters to call and “insist on full repeal of Obamacare.”

GOP REPRESENTATIVES

Jim Banks (R-Ind.)

Ted Budd (R-N.C.)

Bill Flores (R-Texas)

Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas)

Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.)

Tom McClintock (R-Calif.)

Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.)

John Ratcliffe (R-Texas)

Mark Walker (R-N.C.)

Roger Williams (R-Texas)

GOP SENATORS

Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)

Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)

Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

(For more from the author of “BACKLASH: This Is How to Kill RyanCare, Says One Conservative Group” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

WikiLeaks Docs May ‘Kill’ CIA’s Ability to Operate

/0 Comments/in , /by

WikiLeaks latest trove of documents, which allegedly show technical details of the Central Intelligence Agency’s hacking arsenal, may neuter U.S. abilities to conduct cyber-offensive operations.

The CIA would not officially comment on the matter, but an intelligence source confirmed to the Wall Street Journal that at least some of the documents appear to be accurate. The source continued that the revelation has the potential to be more damaging than the 2013 leaks by Edward Snowden.

Snowden himself characterized the new release as appearing “genuine” and a “big deal.”

This tranche of WikiLeaks documents contains highly technical details, which can be used by an expert adversary against future CIA hacking. WikiLeaks say they will not publish the source code until a “consensus emerges on the technical and political nature of the CIA’s program and how such ‘weapons’ should analyzed, disarmed and published.”

Cybersecurity expert David Kennedy took to twitter to note that the revelations severely damage potential U.S. cyber operations.

(Read more from “WikiLeaks Docs May ‘Kill’ CIA’s Ability to Operate” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pro-Life Groups Sound Caution on Obamacare Replacement Bill

/0 Comments/in , /by

Pro-life leaders are voicing concerns over elements of the Obamacare replacement plan unveiled Monday evening by House Republicans.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative policy organization, issued a statement Tuesday noting that money from refundable tax credits provided by the plan could be used to pay for abortions.

House Speaker Paul Ryan released the draft legislation, called the American Health Care Act, to a tepid response from conservatives who would prefer to repeal Obamacare and then pass a replacement for it.

On his organization’s website and in an email to supporters, Perkins said:

The American Health Care Act contains important provisions which prevent these health care credits and state block grants from paying for plans that cover abortion on demand. However, there is still a pro-life concern in the bill because it could allow funds from the refundable credits to pay for abortions in health savings accounts.

If the House amends the legislation to specify that tax credits cannot be used for abortion, Perkins suggested, Senate Republicans face significant challenges in passing such language.

Another pro-life group, Americans United for Life, tweeted Wednesday:

Republicans are using a tool called budget reconciliation to pass their Obamacare replacement plan because it requires only 51 votes to clear the Senate, rather than 60 votes to end debate and proceed to a floor vote.

However, the Byrd rule, which dates to 1985 and is named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., “limits the type of policies that can be included in reconciliation to those that are specifically related to the budget,” Rachel Bovard, director of policy services at The Heritage Foundation, said in an email to The Daily Signal.

The rule could prevent pro-life language from being included in the Senate version of the measure to repeal and replace Obamacare.

If a senator invokes the Byrd rule, the “extraneous matter” of disallowing use of tax credits for abortion could be stuck down, unless 60 senators voted to waive the rule. Republicans hold 52 Senate seats.

“Right now it’s unclear whether or not this pro-life provision would pass muster in the Senate,” said Bovard, a former Senate aide.

An Obamacare repeal and replace bill that doesn’t include a pro-life provision is exactly what concerns Perkins.

“If the abortion funding restrictions for health care credits and state funds in this new bill fails in the Senate, then these provisions will subsidize abortion. In that case, the pro-life community could not support the overall bill and should oppose it,” he said.

In 2015, the House and Senate passed an Obamacare repeal bill with a pro-life component using the budget reconciliation process. It “cleared all the procedural loopholes in the Senate,” Bovard said, though President Barack Obama vetoed it in January 2016.

While Republicans’ new repeal and replace bill, the American Health Care Act, does include pro-life measures such as a yearlong freeze on federal taxpayers’ money going to Planned Parenthood, pro-life organizations say the bill could go further.

Tom McClusky, vice president of government affairs at the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, said lawmakers have work to do on the replacement plan.

“There is still a great deal of work to be done to ensure that this entire bill is pro-life, specifically with regards to tax credits and health care savings—ensuring that neither go to pay for abortion,” McClusky said in a prepared statement Wednesday. “Our message is simple: Abortion is not health care, and our laws should reflect this basic principle.”

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, the nation’s largest pro-life youth organization, said taxpayer funding for abortion is a deal breaker.

“Congress cannot pass anything that would give money to Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry, especially if it is even more than they are currently receiving through Obamacare, which is a distinct possibility if the Hyde protections are lost,” Hawkins said in a statement to The Daily Signal.

The Hyde Amendment, established in 1976 and named after the late Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., prohibits use of federal funds for most elective abortions.

“The bottom line is that no taxpayer funding of abortion is acceptable, ever,” Hawkins said.

Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, told The Daily Signal in an email that the organization applauds Republican efforts to craft a pro-life replacement plan, but reaffirms its stance on opposing use of federal funds to pay for abortions. Tobias said:

National Right to Life opposes the use of subsidies or tax credits which could be used to cover abortion in any federal health plan. We recognize the time and effort put into the drafting of the House bill and thank congressional leadership for their efforts so far to see that abortion is not to be covered in the American Health Care Act. We look forward to working with them to make sure this goal is met.

(For more from the author of “Pro-Life Groups Sound Caution on Obamacare Replacement Bill” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Texas Bathroom Bill Intended to Be ‘Model for Other States’

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Texas Legislature will be voting next week on a bill that will prevent men from entering women’s restrooms and the lieutenant governor of Texas says his state’s legislation is a model for the nation.

“I think that our legislation can be a model for other states to follow and end this discussion once and for all about men being able to walk into ladies’ rooms in public buildings and to stop school districts from allowing boys and girls to shower together,” Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview Wednesday.

If passed into law, the Texas Privacy Act will ensure that men and women use separate bathrooms.

Texas state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, the author of the bill, said there is currently no law on the books in Texas that prevents a man from entering a woman’s restroom dressed looking like a man.

The Texas Legislature held a hearing for the bill on Tuesday.

After nearly 20 hours of public testimony by over 400 witnesses, Patrick said the Texas state Senate Committee on State Affairs voted 8-1 to send the bill to the full Texas Senate for a vote.

The bill is nondiscriminatory, Patrick said, because it encourages schools and government buildings and businesses to provide special facilities for those who want an exception.

“It does not discriminate but it is focused on public safety and common decency and privacy,” Patrick said.

Sarah Kate Ellis, the president and CEO of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), released a statement in February in opposition of the bill.

It was published with a letter that included over 140 signatures of entertainers and musicians decrying the Texas Privacy Act and other “anti-LGBTQ bills.”

“The public outcry by musicians and influencers against upcoming anti-LGBTQ bills in Texas should have lawmakers taking note,” Ellis said. “By adding their voices to the chorus of fair-minded people calling for equality, these artists are using their platforms to speak out and send the resounding message that discrimination is not an American value.”

The American Civil Liberties Union released an ad protesting the legislation which tells viewers they can “stop the bill.”

“You’ve gotta roll up your sleeves, pull down your pants, and pee with LGBT … this isn’t a privacy issue,” the ad states.

Dana Hodges, state director for Concerned Women for America of Texas, a conservative women’s advocacy organization, said the bill is about safeguarding privacy and dignity.

“This bill protects the privacy, safety, and dignity of women and girls in public facilities,” Hodges said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal. “It also allows private industries to make their own restroom policy. This is an issue I’m passionate about having been personally violated in a women’s restroom.”

Patrick said he expects a full vote in the Texas state Senate next Tuesday or Wednesday. (For more from the author of “Texas Bathroom Bill Intended to Be ‘Model for Other States” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Permanent Federal Bureaucracy Leads Opposition to Trump Agenda

/0 Comments/in , /by

Leaks from the White House seem to indicate a bureaucratic push against President Donald Trump and his administration, some government watchdogs have said.

“There is a level of paranoia in the White House, but even paranoids can have real concerns,” Peter Flaherty, president of the National Legal and Policy Center, told The Daily Signal. “How do you conduct business when you think you’re being spied on, with good reason.”

The combination of former political appointees that converted to civil service positions, and a long-standing bias among federal bureaucrats have led to an attempt to undermine Trump, Flaherty said.

“The degree to which the intelligence apparatus wants to do in Trump is scary,” Flaherty said. “In recent years, intelligence agencies have trended left. Part of that has been Obama appointees. It’s also part of the education background of the people hired there for the last 20 years.”

Opposition to Trump may go beyond the intelligence agencies.

The Environmental Protection Agency, according to Politico, has career employees using an encoded app to communicate about work-related issues to stop Trump EPA employees from “undermining” the agency’s mission. The watchdog group Cause of Action Institute has made a freedom of information request for all of the encrypted communications because the Federal Records Act requires agencies to preserve all records made by employees working on official government business.

“If federal employees are using encrypted apps on their phones to avoid transparency laws, that’s a problem regardless of their political motivations,” Henry Kerner, an assistant vice president at the Cause of Action Institute, told The Daily Signal in an email statement. “The only reason to use these apps, instead of their government email accounts, would be to conceal their discussions from oversight. Federal agencies have a legal obligation to preserve all records made by employees working on official government business. Americans have a right to know if federal employees are using encrypted electronic messages to evade transparency.”

Trump has been criticized for tweeting last weekend that former President Barack Obama “had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory.”

Although there were several news reports of interceptions, and of a potential FISA court order (named for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), Trump didn’t provide evidence from the executive branch agencies that Obama ordered wiretapping.

The White House is asking Congress to review the leaks, which is already investigating Russia’s effort to interfere with the presidential election.

“I think the smartest and most deliberative way to address this situation is to ask the House and Senate intelligence committees who are already in the process of looking into this to look into this and other leaks of classified information that are troubling to our nation’s national security,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Monday during a press briefing.

Among federal employees, about 95 percent of political contributions went to Democrat Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race, according to an analysis by The Hill in October. Some federal workers have been in consultation with departed Obama administration officials to determine how they can push back against the Trump administration’s agenda, The Washington Post reported in January.

“If we believe the liberal media, the bureaucracy is trying to undermine the president who was elected by the people, when [the bureaucrats] weren’t. They are there to serve the president,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told The Daily Signal. “The permanent bureaucracy is pro-bureaucracy. It is not pro-reform.”

The Weekly Standard reported in a recent story that two negative op-eds on the Trump administration were written by White House officials who worked under Ben Rhodes, Obama’s national security spokesman.

Edward Price, a National Security Council spokesman for the Obama White House, transitioned back to the CIA after the election. He wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post, published on Feb. 20, that said, “I didn’t think I’d ever leave the CIA. But because of Trump, I quit.” It went on to say, “To be clear, my decision had nothing to do with politics.”

However, the Post followed up with a clarification stating Price contributed a total of $5,000 to Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic Party in 2016.

One Obama White House employee who continued to work briefly for the White House under the Trump administration was Rumana Ahmed. After quitting, she wrote a piece for The Atlantic published Feb. 23, with the headline“I Was a Muslim in Trump’s White House.”

“When President Obama left, I stayed on at the National Security Council in order to serve my country,” Ahmed wrote. “I lasted eight days.”

This, she wrote, was because “it was an insult walking into this country’s most historic building every day under an administration that is working against and vilifying everything I stand for as an American and as a Muslim.”

The New York Times reported last May in a profile on Rhodes that: “In the front office, [Rhodes’] assistant, Rumana Ahmed, and his deputy, Ned Price, are squeezed behind desks, which face a large television screen, from which CNN blares nonstop.”

In the Times piece, Price particularly talked about Rhodes manipulating media coverage.

Fitton said this shouldn’t be a surprise.

“It’s not credible to believe that Obama supporters would plan to work long term for Donald Trump,” Fitton said. “Were these individuals interested in working for Donald Trump long term, or were they looking for an excuse to ding him?” (For more from the author of “Permanent Federal Bureaucracy Leads Opposition to Trump Agenda” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Supreme Court’s Pass on Transgender Case Will Ignite Further Lawsuits

/0 Comments/in , /by

For the past few months, the legal community has been preparing for a grand showdown before the Supreme Court on student privacy rights.

The central question at hand: Must schools allow a student into sleeping facilities, locker rooms, and restrooms reserved for the opposite sex if that student subjectively identifies with that sex?

The prospects for that face-off, in the case of Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., grew dim a few weeks ago when the Trump administration rescinded an Obama-era directive that lay at the heart of that case.

The directive would have required the Gloucester County School Board in Virginia to allow Gavin Grimm, a female student who identifies as a male, to use the boys’ restroom. The Trump administration’s withdrawal of that Obama-era directive fundamentally altered the nature of the case.

As a result, earlier this week, the Supreme Court did what many expected and sent the Gloucester case back to the court of appeals. That move not only tees up the case for a ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, it also kick-starts many similar cases that had been put on hold.

Those cases all revolve around one central issue. Gender identity advocates insist that the term “sex” in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972—a statute that prohibits public schools from discriminating “on the basis of sex”—includes the altogether distinct notion of “gender identity.”

This argument is a stretch. Sex, after all, is fundamentally different from gender identity.

Sex is rooted in biological reality determined at birth by objective criteria like anatomy and chromosomes. But gender identity is based on subjective perceptions—the idea that a person’s status as male, female, or something in between depends on what he thinks about himself.

And nothing in Title IX’s congressional history or its regulations suggests that Congress had gender identity in mind when it used the word “sex.”

Nor is there any support in Title IX for the novel idea that federal law requires boys who identify as girls to share sleeping facilities, locker rooms, and restrooms with girls.

On the contrary, for over four decades Title IX and its regulations have explicitly said that schools may implement sex-specific access policies for these sorts of private facilities.

Ironically, gender identity advocates are taking a law intended to equalize educational opportunities for women and distorting it to deny them opportunities. Young girls who don’t want to share locker rooms with male students are now forced into uncomfortable school settings day in and day out, and female athletes are being required to compete against boys who identify as girls.

These developments mark a sad regression, not an advancement, in women’s rights.

Perhaps realizing that gender identity proponents face a tall task in making plausible that which is implausible, the Obama administration leant a helping hand. It issued decrees claiming that gender identity must be read into Title IX and that students must be allowed to use sex-specific facilities that correspond with their gender identity instead of their sex.

By doing so, President Barack Obama tilted the scales of the debate. Various legal doctrines like Chevron and Auer deference require courts to give special respect to the executive branch’s interpretation of the laws that it is charged with implementing.

With the Trump administration’s actions on Feb. 22, the executive’s thumb has now been lifted off the scale.

The Justice Department recognized that the Obama-era directives did not “contain extensive legal analysis,” “explain how the[ir] position is consistent with the express language of Title IX,” or give “due regard for the primary role of the States and local school districts in establishing educational policy.”

For these reasons, President Donald Trump did away with the Obama administration’s dictates.

Although gender identity advocates have lost the tremendous advantage of having the executive branch champion their cause, they will undoubtedly continue to press their position in court. And the Supreme Court’s decision not to rule in the Gloucester case reignites many cases that will give them occasion to do just that.

Students concerned about their privacy rights have filed a number of these cases—one in Illinois and another in Minnesota. They attend public schools that allow classmates of the opposite sex to share their locker rooms and restrooms, and they object to this violation of their dignity and privacy.

These cases will soon resume, and within no time, many more courts will decide whether federal law forces schools to allow boys who identify as girls to share locker rooms with female students.

Once those courts rule, advocates will again ask the Supreme Court to settle the issue once and for all. Should the court agree to do that, we’ll find ourselves exactly where we were just a few days ago. (For more from the author of “Supreme Court’s Pass on Transgender Case Will Ignite Further Lawsuits” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.