3 Different Ways State GOP Lawmakers Are Fighting Sanctuary Cities

/0 Comments/in , /by

In states across the country, Republican lawmakers are aiming to combat sanctuary cities and counties, and in some cases banding together to develop new ways to prod local jurisdictions into helping enforce federal immigration law.

While these efforts are not unique—18 states introduced legislation to limit sanctuary policies in the 2016 state legislative session—they are taking a stronger force at a time when the Trump administration has begun reviewing how to punish sanctuary cities by withholding federal grant funding.

At the same time, states, cities, and counties that provide protection to immigrants living illegally in their communities have refused to back down.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 29 states and Washington, D.C., are considering legislation in 2017 regarding sanctuary jurisdictions or noncompliance with immigration detainers.

Of these states, 25 states would prohibit sanctuary policies and 8 states and Washington, D.C., would support them. Five states have legislation on both sides of the issue.

“The role of state and local law enforcement in federal immigration policy has returned to the forefront of public debate,” Ann Morse of the National Conference of State Legislatures wrote in her synopsis of state-level legislative action.

Here are three strategies states are proposing to challenge sanctuary cities.

1. Criminal Prosecution

The Republican-controlled Texas Senate last month passed legislation that subjects leaders of sanctuary cities and counties to criminal prosecution if they refuse to honor requests, known as detainers, from federal immigration officers to hand over illegal immigrants in custody for possible deportation.

“If elected officials want to flaunt state law there will penalty,” said state Rep. Charlie Geren, a Republican who is finalizing a similar bill in the Texas House that may include a criminal liability component.

Colorado’s state Rep. Dave Williams, a Republican, has been rebuffed by Democrats in advancing legislation that would allow people to file civil suits and criminal complaints against “lawless politicians.”

Democrats alleged it would be unconstitutional to subject local politicians to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution.

Despite his bill’s quick demise in a state where Democrats control the House and governorship, Williams, a freshman of Mexican descent, has touted his Colorado Politician Accountability Act on national television, and like-minded lawmakers in other states have cited his efforts as inspiring them.

“My bill may be effectively dead, but this effort will continue to make elected officials think twice before implementing sanctuary policies that endanger the public,” Williams told The Daily Signal.

Heeding this call for action, Ohio state Rep. Candice Keller, a freshman Republican, is drafting a bill—her first ever—to ban sanctuary cities, and she is consulting with Williams in considering whether to include a civil and criminal liability element.

“Last month, I called Dave and I said, ‘Do you care if I take off on this sanctuary city bill?’” Keller told The Daily Signal. “He’s been supportive and he periodically checks in on me.”

2. Imposing Fines and Blocking Funds

In Florida, Republican lawmakers emboldened by the results of November’s election have introduced bills that would impose an array of penalties on cities and counties that have sanctuary immigration policies.

The Rule of Law Adherence Act, authored by state Sen. Aaron Bean, contains a provision that would would impose a fine of up to $5,000 a day on any government entity that is found to have a sanctuary policy. It would also withhold state grant funding for five years from any government entity that violates the act.

Bean acknowledges there is no formal definition of a sanctuary policy and that a law enforcement agency would have to demonstrate a “practice” of declining detainer requests to qualify for punishment.

“If a jurisdiction were to decline one or two detainers, that would not qualify,” Bean said. “We don’t really want to fine anyone. We really just want to say, ‘Work with federal immigration authorities.’”

The law does not go as far as others in that it does not leave politicians open to criminal prosecution—only civil liability.

It would allow government agencies to be sued should a person who is in the country illegally injure or kill someone as a result of an entity having a prohibited sanctuary policy.

“If any one agency or entity engages in sanctuary policies, it puts our entire state at risk, and so we are going to act, take away your immunity, and hold you accountable,” Bean told The Daily Signal.

Bean admits he faces an “uphill battle” to turn his legislation into law, even in a state that is fully controlled by Republicans. A similar bill to outlaw sanctuary policies failed last year even with a GOP-led legislature.

But the threat of action has already prompted Miami-Dade County to eliminate its sanctuary protections.

Acting on a order from Mayor Carlos Gimenez, a Republican, the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners last month adopted a resolution to fully cooperate with requests from federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Gimenez acted one day after President Donald Trump issued his executive order threatening to crack down on sanctuary cities. The mayor said he didn’t want to put the county at risk of losing $355 million a year that it receives in federal funding.

Miami-Dade’s previous policy, codified in a 2013 resolution, limited what kind of ICE detainers it would honor to include only suspects convicted of serious, violent crimes.

Over recent years, local governments across the U.S. began to resist fully complying with detainers, which are requests by ICE to hold an arrested individual beyond their normally scheduled release so federal immigration officers can take custody of them.

U.S. appeals courts have ruled that cooperating with detainer requests is voluntary—not required—for local jurisdictions.

The courts have said ICE detainers violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. A Miami-Dade judge ruled Friday that holding inmates for ICE is unconstitutional.

Jean Monestime, a Miami-Dade County commissioner who authored the 2013 resolution limiting cooperation with ICE detainers, told The Daily Signal he would continue to fight efforts that mandate sanctuary jurisdictions to change their policies.

“This is an issue of fairness, it’s an issue of due process, and it’s an issue of protecting our community to allow undocumented folks to not be afraid to report crimes to law enforcement,” said Monestime, who opposed the mayor’s order restoring full cooperation with ICE . “I don’t think this position helps make our community safer.”

3. ‘A Warning Shot’

Some Republican lawmakers opposing sanctuary cities are taking a more cautious approach.

In Iowa, where Republicans have total state control for the first time since the 1990s, bills introduced in the House and Senate would dictate that all cities and counties must help enforce federal immigration law.

But state Rep. Steven Holt said his legislation would not impose fines or withhold funding from jurisdictions that don’t comply with the law’s provisions.

“My legislation is an important statement that rule of law matters and protection of Americans should come first,” Holt said. “But it has no teeth in it in terms of financial penalties. We thought that would be a bridge too far. This is a warning shot.”

No city or county in Iowa formally recognizes itself as a sanctuary, although the City Council in Iowa City adopted a policy in January that denies allocation of local resources to federal immigration enforcement.

“We all know the vast majority of people without documentation are here for a better life, but it just takes one bad case of a violent criminal being released to harm Americans,” Holt said.

Eleanor Dilkes, the city attorney in Iowa City, told The Daily Signal that the council will not change its policy, even if Holt’s bill becomes law.

“Iowa City’s reaffirmation that city resources will continue to be used for public safety and not the enforcement of federal immigration law would not be affected if this bill were to become law,” she wrote in an email.

Questions Remain

In Tennessee, a state with full Republican control, there is already a law on the books prohibiting local governments or law enforcement officials from making policies that prevent compliance with federal immigration requests.

That law, like the ones proposed in Iowa, does not contain financial penalties for noncompliance.

There aren’t any official sanctuary cities in Tennessee.

Yet state Sen. Mark Green, a Republican, says it’s important to be proactive, and he boasts about legislation he recently introduced that withholds state funding from jurisdictions that resist immigration enforcement.

“There was a sanctuary city bill that passed a few years ago that made these policies illegal, but it had no teeth,” Green said. “We are putting teeth with the bill.”

But Green is running into roadblocks. The office of Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam, a Republican, recently notified Green that the state constitution prohibits the withholding of education funding to communities. So Green is amending his legislation to say the state cannot block education funds.

“We want to make sure the legislation is foolproof against legal challenges,” Green said.

Even so, legal experts say sanctuary states and localities likely will challenge state and federal laws requiring compliance in enforcing federal immigration law.

“It’s one thing for a state to ask local law enforcement officers to enforce state law,” said Pratheepan Gulasekaram, a Santa Clara University immigration law professor, in an interview with The Daily Signal. “These debates are interesting, odd, and different, because they are proposed state laws that create penalties for nonparticipation in federal law enforcement. This will make these laws subject to due process litigation.”

Other law experts say states have wide authority that even protects tougher proposed policies such as those in Texas and Colorado that threaten criminal prosecution against sanctuary cities.

“It would be legal for states to impose criminal liability on their own officials for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, as the Texas bill would do,” said Michael Dimino, a constitutional law professor at Widener University.

“That does not mean that the bills will be free from constitutional challenge,” Dimino wrote in an email to The Daily Signal. “On the contrary, I think it is clear that suits will be brought alleging that they violate the immigrants’ rights. But if state law requires state officials to cooperate with federal immigration officials, I cannot see any decent argument that those state officials would have for refusing to comply with the law.” (For more from the author of “3 Different Ways State GOP Lawmakers Are Fighting Sanctuary Cities” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Texas Legislature to Consider Bill to Ensure ‘Public Safety’ in Bathrooms

/0 Comments/in , /by

Texas is taking measures to protect its citizens from laws that hinder “common sense and public safety” when it comes to transgender persons being allowed to use both men’s and women’s restrooms.

“This is a public safety issue,” Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican, said during a conference call with reporters Friday.

Legislation filed by Texas state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, seeks to ensure that men and women use separate bathrooms.

Kolkhorst said the bill, titled the Texas Privacy Act, will clarify who will be allowed to enter both men’s and women’s restrooms.

“I don’t view this bill as a transgender bill,” Kolkhorst said in the conference call. “It truly is about public safety … It is not against the law for a man to enter a woman’s restroom dressed looking like a man. There is nothing on the books here in Texas.”

The gender on a person’s birth certificate would determine which bathroom Texans could use.

“In Texas, there is a way to change your birth certificate and it is going before a district judge and presenting the date of either hormone therapy or the surgery and then the judge makes the decision that [the gender on] the birth certificate shall be changed,” Kolkhorst said.

Patrick said the bill is necessary because it is “common practice” that men and women use separate bathrooms.

“The people of Texas elected us to stand up for common decency, common sense, and public safety,” Patrick said in a statement. “This legislation codifies what has been common practice in Texas and everywhere else forever—that men and women should use separate, designated bathrooms.”

Patrick says the legislation has received bipartisan support and is viewed favorably by men and women, African-Americans, and Hispanics.

While ensuring that bathrooms remain separate for men and women, the bill also specifies that “no public school can institute a bathroom policy that allows boys to go in girls restrooms, showers, and locker rooms and girls to go in boys restrooms, showers, and locker rooms,” according to Patrick’s statement.

According to Patrick’s office, the hearing for the Texas Privacy Act is the first legislative hearing for privacy protection legislation following President Donald Trump’s revocation of President Barack Obama’s bathroom directive issued by the Justice and Education departments in May.

Obama’s directive allowed students identifying as transgender to be able to use the restroom that corresponded with their gender identity and mandated schools conform to the rule.

Trump rescinded the directive in late February, and a statement from the White House on bathroom usage specified that policy for those who identify as transgender should be decided by the states.

Opponents of the Texas bill say they are concerned that Kolkhorst’s legislation is too similar to the bathroom bill passed by North Carolina last March.

During a conference call with reporters, Patrick said that he does not believe the Texas Privacy Act will have adverse economic effects.

Critics of North Carolina’s bill claim the state lost out on economic opportunities because of the bill, CNN reports.

According to CNN, businesses chose not to expand because of the bill and the NBA moved its All-Star Game from Charlotte, North Carolina, to a location outside the state.

However, former North Carolina Commerce Secretary John Skvarla said North Carolina’s economy was not adversely affected, according to The Charlotte Observer.

“It hasn’t moved the needle one iota,” Skvarla said in October.

Patrick argued the Texas bill was different than the North Carolina bill.

“I think there has been significant misrepresentation in what happened in North Carolina,” Patrick said. “Our bill is not the North Carolina bill … Our bill is very narrow and it deals with public safety, keeping sexual predators pretending to be transgender people [from entering] adult bathrooms.”

Ryan T. Anderson, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that this bill is appropriate because it seeks to protect the dignity of all people.

“While we must be sensitive to the dignity, privacy, and safety concerns of people who identify as transgender, that is not a reason to ignore the dignity, privacy, and safety concerns of everyone else,” Anderson said in an email to The Daily Signal.

The Texas Privacy Act hearing is scheduled for March 7 in the Texas Senate. (For more from the author of “Texas Legislature to Consider Bill to Ensure ‘Public Safety’ in Bathrooms” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former Federal Prosecutor Calls for Every Senator to Reveal Ambassadors They Met With

/0 Comments/in , /by

In light of Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusing himself from the Russian investigation, a government watchdog group is asking every senator to provide a list of ambassadors they met with over the past three years.

A spokeswoman for Sessions said that as a senator he had 25 conversations with ambassadors in 2016, including those representing Britain, South Korea, Japan, Poland, India, China, Canada, Australia, and Russia.

Matthew Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, now executive director of the Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust, a watchdog group, said he has asked other senators to be transparent about their meetings.

“I think, in a sense, [meetings with foreign ambassadors to the United States] is fairly routine in the House and Senate, particularly in the Senate,” Whitaker told The Daily Signal. “It would be revealing to see how many meetings other senators have had.”

After federal investigators examined contacts between Sessions and Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak from last year, Sessions announced Thursday he would recuse himself from any investigation into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Several news accounts say that Kislyak wasn’t shy about interaction with other senators. The Washington Post noted that Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., met at least twice with him—in 2013 and 2015, highlighting her tweets about the meeting.

Fox News analyst Brit Hume said that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., one of the biggest critics of the Sessions meeting, also met with the Russian ambassador.

Other photos surfaced showing that Kislyak met with Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I.; Roy Blunt, R-Mo.; Roger Wicker, R-Miss.; McCaskill, and former Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.

Kislyak also reportedly visited the Obama White House 22 times, according to The Daily Caller.

Democrats accused Sessions of misleading the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings to be attorney general when he said he did not meet with Russians as a surrogate for Trump.

There were two meetings, one in Sessions’ office and another at a Heritage Foundation foreign policy forum held in coordination with the State Department in Cleveland for foreign ambassadors during the week of the Republican National Convention.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have called for Sessions to resign from office for what he told the Senate committee about the Russians.

Whitaker said he doubts Sessions’ testimony could ever amount to a perjury charge. Such a charge would have to prove he was willfully and intentionally lying and would also have to be material to the subject at hand—in this case, his confirmation as attorney general.

“Based on that we know now, I do not see any charge of lying to Congress under oath,” Whitaker said. “No prosecutor would ever bring that case. If you watch the question in context, it was clear he was answering about the campaign. If he was asked about a meeting as a senator, I believe he would have answered differently.”

Whitaker argued the wording of the question and Sessions’ answer are important.

During the January confirmation hearing, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., asked Sessions:

CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, ‘Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.’ These documents also allegedly say quote, ‘There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.’ Now, again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

Sessions responded:

Sen. Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have—did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.

The White House rejected that either meeting between Sessions and the Russian ambassador is evidence of a conspiracy.

“Please explain to me how volunteers meeting at a conference where nearly 80 ambassadors attended is a story,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters Friday en route to Orlando aboard Air Force One, according to the pool report.

“I guess it’s kind of lost on me where that would be newsworthy in any capacity,” Sanders continued. “I mean Chuck Schumer sitting and having drinks with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and that’s not a news story, but apparently a volunteer for a campaign bumping into [an ambassador] at a conference where there’s, again, dozens of other ambassadors is newsworthy?”

Sanders was referring to another a photo from 2003 of Schumer and Putin together in New York that Trump tweeted out.

“As a senator, he obviously in his official capacity met with the ambassador,” Sanders added. “Again, that was as a senator, not as a campaign official, so again, to try to muddy the waters in that way is, I think, pretty unfair to the attorney general.” (For more from the author of “Former Federal Prosecutor Calls for Every Senator to Reveal Ambassadors They Met With” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Anti-Trump Former Journalist Arrested for Allegedly Threatening Jewish Community Centers

/0 Comments/in , /by

A man arrested for issuing threats against Jewish establishments has been identified as an anti-Trump journalist previously fired for falsifying news stories.

ABC News reported that 31-year-old Juan Thompson, a St. Louis resident, allegedly made a minimum of eight threats across the country targeting Jewish community centers, schools, a Jewish civil rights organization, and a museum in a “campaign to harass and intimidate” a woman he had been in a relationship with.

Thompson, who said he voted for Bernie Sanders, has publicly expressed antipathy toward Donald Trump and his backers. In January, he tweeted that Americans who approve of the president’s job performance are “filthy fascist appeasers” who “should be taken out along with Trump.”

Thompson also called Trump a “racist/sexist/capitalist monster” in a February tweet.

Thompson has advocated “punch[ing]” capitalists, accused The New York Times of being “white America’s dominant newspaper,” and called white people “the dumbest, most racist people on earth.”

As recently as Monday, Thompson tweeted out a message about the anti-Semitic bomb threats, saying, “Another week, another round of threats against Jewish [people]. In the middle of the day, you know who’s at a [Jewish community center]? Kids. KIDS.”

Thompson is a former reporter for The Intercept, an online news website that published an article this week accusing Trump of refusing to “accept that his allies are targeting Jews.”

The Intercept has since changed the headline of its article and acknowledged that one of its former writers was accused of being responsible for some of these anti-Semitic threats.

Thompson worked at The Intercept from 2014 to early 2016, when he left the company after he was caught fabricating quotes and sources.

According to a local St. Louis newspaper, the Riverfront Times, Thompson’s worst example of unethical journalism was the fabrication of a quote from Dylann Roof’s supposed cousin, Scott Roof—who reportedly does not exist. Dylann Roof is the convicted perpetrator of a mass shooting at a black church in South Carolina.

Thompson wrote briefly for Media Blackout USA last year, another news website, but was fired after the outlet learned of his questionable history, according to the Riverfront Times.

On Twitter, Thompson accused his former girlfriend of instigating the threats in his name, saying, “Know any good lawyers? Need to stop this nasty/racist #whitegirl I dated who sent a bomb threat in my name & wants me to be raped in jail.”

From Hillary Clinton to the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights organization that was threatened by Thompson, calls for Trump to condemn and disassociate himself from the anti-Semitic threats became common over the last few weeks.

BuzzFeed News reported on Trump’s comments on the anti-Semitic incidents this week:

Asked about the recent wave of anti-Semitic attacks and threats across the nation, President Trump on Tuesday told a group of state attorneys general that “sometimes it’s the reverse,” Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro said of Trump’s comments in his and other officials’ meeting with the president.

“He just said, ‘Sometimes it’s the reverse, to make people—or to make others—look bad,’ and he used the word ‘reverse’ I would say two to three times in his comments,” Shapiro said. “He did correctly say at the top that it was reprehensible.”

Trump also said in a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “We are going to do everything within our power to stop long-simmering racism.” (For more from the author of “Anti-Trump Former Journalist Arrested for Allegedly Threatening Jewish Community Centers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

PC Grammar Goon: This Supreme Court Clerk DEMANDED Petitioners Refer to a Girl as ‘He’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Within the next few weeks, the Supreme Court (which now decides every political issue and redefines immutable laws of nature) will be ruling on whether transgenderism is considered an inalienable right. However, it appears that the office of the “Clerk of the Supreme Court” — the “deep state” bureaucracy of the judiciary — has already decided that transgenderism is the law of the land.

The inimitable Ed Whelan of National Review has drawn attention to a recent letter sent by the Supreme Court’s Office of the Clerk to two groups, who filed amicus briefs on behalf of sexual sanity, demanding they refer to a transgender girl as a “he.”

In Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, the family of Gavin Grimm, a girl who is unfortunately suffering from a mental disorder, is demanding that the local school allow her to use the male bathroom.

The fourth and sixth circuits have already redefined human sexuality through the 14th Amendment (adopted in 1868) and Title IX (adopted in 1972)! The school district appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, and the high court recently requested more briefs from both sides.

As is the case with all high-profile issues, groups on both sides filed amicus briefs in support for one of the litigants. When Liberty University and Professor John Eastman filed briefs, the Office of the Clerk sent back the following message:

It has come to the attention of this office that the cover of your amicus brief in this case identifies the respondent as “G.G., by her next friend and mother, Deirdre Grimm.” In fact, the caption for the case in this Court, as in the lower courts, identifies the respondent as “G.G., by his Next Friend and Mother, Deirdre Grimm.” (Emphasis added.) Under Rule 34, your cover is to reflect the caption of the case. Please ensure careful compliance with this requirement in this and other cases in the future. [emphasis added]

The current Office of the Clerk, which handles the flow of cases, proceedings, filings, and recordings (not to be confused with individual law clerks of Supreme Court justices) is run by Scott S. Harris. This particular letter was signed by one of the assistant clerks, Denise McNerney.

As Whelan notes, this move was likely triggered by the public complaint from a radical leftist writer at Slate Magazine. But why would the clerk’s office feel pressure from a random left-wing writer to enforce such a bizarre misinterpretation of a filing rule when such a move would signal the court’s bias on the underlying merits? It would be absurd enough for the court to get involved in such a decision to begin with, but it is especially illogical to take the transgender side of things as the default position before the case is even decided.

Later on, after Whelan made further inquiries, the clerk’s office admitted that there is no such rule forcing amici to use the case title listed in the court’s docket, just this clerk’s own personal view that “parties generally should use” the docketed case title.

Clearly, the prudent thing to do is to allow both sides to use either pronoun, but certainly not to make one (the anti-scientific term, by the way) the default position.

However, McNerney rushed to enforce her random guidance just in this case for obvious political reasons. In this case, McNerney violated her oath of office to “faithfully and impartially discharge” her duties (28 U.S. Code §951).

The court system is so far left, it has already decided to redefine the most immutable laws of nature. And this comes on the heels of another district judge’s decision (this time, in Pennsylvania) to codify transgenderism into the 14th Amendment.

Yup, there is no right to freedom of conscience, private property, or the Second Amendment, but somehow an amendment written in 1868 was intended to give someone the right to use a bathroom meant for the opposite sex.

As James F. Wilson — chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who oversaw the drafting of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment — noted at the time, the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses were “establishing no new right, declaring no new principle,” but rather codified in order to reiterate and “to protect and enforce those which belong to every citizen.”

No new principle indeed! Had Wilson only known his amendment would lead to lawfare with the power to alter an X chromosome. (No doubt, this principle of transgenderism comes from the same legal right to immigrate.)

This case further exposes another uncomfortable reality for conservatives regarding the courts: Last year, I listed 12 reasons why the federal judiciary is irremediably broken. Grimm reveals a 13th. The “deep state” of the judiciary, much like the deep state of the executive branch, is full of leftist lawyers no matter who sits on the court. And this is true up and down the lower courts. But unlike the executive branch, the judiciary is wrongly regarded as wielding the power of the supreme law of the land.

Chief Justice Roberts should rebuke McNerney and other staff who seek to tip the balance to one side of a litigation. Moreover, Congress needs to reassert its authority over some of these practices. Remember, unlike with the executive branch where the president has full authority over personnel, the judicial branch staff is completely subject to statutory regulations placed by Congress. Contrary to popular thought, the judiciary is not wholly independent from Congress (and certainly not “supreme”).

Unless Justice Kennedy miraculous discovers his inner intellectual honesty, we know how this case will end. Grimm will be the transgender version of Obergefell in which the most immutable law of nature is redefined.

Republicans were appallingly silent after Obergefell, and nothing indicates they will respond more vociferously to Grimm. I have already laid out a plan for the other two branches to fight back against the redefining of sexuality here and here. The question is, “Will Congress continue to remain silent as unelected judges (and even unelected clerks) redefine marriage, sexuality, and the sovereignty of a nation?” (For more from the author of “PC Grammar Goon: This Supreme Court Clerk DEMANDED Petitioners Refer to a Girl as ‘He'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Secret’ Obamacare Plan Leads Lawmakers on Hunt Across Capitol

/0 Comments/in , /by

House Republicans thought they were writing a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. Instead, on Thursday, they found themselves running a traveling circus.

Following reports that a major chunk of their health-care legislation was being held for House GOP review in a secret room somewhere in the Capitol complex, Democrats and Republicans who hadn’t been invited started the hunt. Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, was first on the scene of the supposed secret location.

“It’s the secret office of the secret bill,” Paul told a gaggle of reporters. After being denied entry by a security guard and staff aide, he quickly turned the moment into an impromptu press conference about legislation transparency . . .

House Republicans thought they were writing a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. Instead, on Thursday, they found themselves running a traveling circus. (Read more from “‘Secret’ Obamacare Plan Leads Lawmakers on Hunt Across Capitol” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Calls for Defense Funding Boost to Give Military ‘the Tools They Need to Prevent War’

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump delivered an address aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford in Newport News, Virginia, Thursday afternoon, calling for a boost in defense spending to continue the United States’ military’s qualitative advantage.

The Ford is a state of the art aircraft carrier. It is the most expensive warship ever built, coming in at a price tag of just under $13 billion. The ship is almost ready for service and has not yet been officially delivered, but that could happen as soon as April. It is powered by two nuclear reactors, equipped with the latest advanced technologies, and can reach speeds of over 34 miles per hour.

“Wherever this ship flies her flag, she will be a symbol of US strength, made in America,” the president said from aboard the supercarrier.

“Our military requires sustained, stable funding to meet the growing needs placed in our defense,” Trump said in Newport News, adding that American fighter jets are “often more likely to be down for maintenance than to be up in the sky.”

“Our Navy is now the smallest it’s been since World War I. That’s a long time ago,” he commented.

Trump called for “modernized capabilities and greater force levels,” and an emphasis on cybersecurity improvements. “This great rebuilding effort will create many jobs throughout Virginia, and all across America,” the president added.

“America has always been the country that boldly leads the world into the future, and my budget will ensure we do so,” Trump concluded. American ships will sail the seas. American planes will soar the skies. American workers will build our fleets.”

The White House has recommended that Congress add $54 billion to the Defense Department budget, according to a draft proposal released Monday

“To keep America safe, we must provide the men and women of the United States military with the tools they need to prevent war — if they must — they have to fight and they only have to win,” the president said in his address to Congress Tuesday night.

Experts have evaluated that the United States military, at current readiness levels, would have difficulty engaging in more than one major conflict without sacrificing resources elsewhere

The Heritage Foundation’s 2017 Index of U.S. Military Strength found that “the consistent decline in funding and the consequent shrinking of the force over the past few years have placed it under significant pressure.”

Readiness levels are trending in the wrong direction, according to the Heritage analysis:

Essential maintenance continues to be deferred; the availability of fewer units for operational deployments increases the frequency and length of deployments; and old equipment is being extended while programmed replacements are either delayed or beset by developmental difficulties.

Moreover, the military index finds that the military has been forced to delay and/or cancel modernization efforts due to budgetary shortfalls. This hurts “America’s ability to shape conditions to its advantage by assuring allies and deterring competitors,” the analysis states.

“As currently postured, the U.S. military is only marginally able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests,” a summary of the report concludes. (For more from the author of “Trump Calls for Defense Funding Boost to Give Military ‘the Tools They Need to Prevent War'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senate Confirms Retired Neurosurgeon Ben Carson as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Senate confirmed retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson as the new secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in a 58-41 vote, primarily along party lines, Thursday.

Carson has said he will work to help underprivileged communities.

“I feel that I can make a significant contribution, particularly by strengthening communities that are most in need,” Carson said in December. “We have much work to do in enhancing every aspect of our nation and ensuring that our nation’s housing needs are met.”

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow in domestic policy studies at the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that he is confident Carson will work to strengthen families.

“The major cause of child poverty in America is the collapse of the family in low-income communities,” Rector, an authority on poverty and welfare, said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal. “Dr. Carson can serve as a powerful spokesperson for the restoration of the family, the decrease in poverty, and the improvement of human well-being across the nation.”

Carson, who said he used to be a “flaming liberal,” is now an outspoken critic of government dependency.

During his confirmation hearings, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., asked Carson about the best way to help those on government assistance.

“What is the best possible thing we can do for somebody who is on government assistance?” Tillis asked.

“Get them off of it,” Carson replied.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., congratulated Carson on his confirmation and said that he and Carson would “work to get more Americans out of poverty and on the ladder of opportunity.”

Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., said Carson will “bring a fresh perspective to a government agency in desperate need of innovative change.”

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said he voted to confirm Carson because he believes Carson “understands that the housing and development needs facing West Virginia are different than those facing America’s urban communities,” and that he looks forward to collaborating with Carson to “improve the lives of West Virginians.”

The Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee unanimously voted to move Carson out of committee on Jan. 24, yet, despite the bipartisan support in the committee vote, Carson did face Democrat obstruction.

“[Democrats] are claiming they successfully delayed Carson, and that’s partially true,” Rachel Bovard, a former Senate aide and director of policy services at The Heritage Foundation, said in an email to The Daily Signal.

“They delayed him by forcing all post-cloture time to be run on every single nominee,” Bovard said. “Once cloture [a procedure to end debate] is invoked on a nominee, 30 hours of debate is required, unless both sides agree by unanimous consent to shorten it.”

Democrats were able to successfully stall Carson’s vote for over a month by demanding every nominee meet the maximum 30 hours of debate before taking a full Senate vote, according to Bovard.

“The [Democrats] have effectively tied up the floor and slowed the pace of confirmations to a literal crawl. It’s actually quite an effective tactic by the [Democrats],” Bovard said.

Carson, according to ABC News, is the 17th of 22 of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet and Cabinet-level nominations to be confirmed by the Senate. (For more from the author of “Senate Confirms Retired Neurosurgeon Ben Carson as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Deployed US Navy Has a Pregnancy Problem, and It’s Getting Worse

/0 Comments/in , /by

A record 16 out of 100 Navy women are reassigned from ships to shore duty due to pregnancy, according to data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group.

That number is up 2 percent from 2015, representing hundreds more who have to cut their deployments short, taxing both their unit’s manpower, military budgets and combat readiness. Further, such increases cast a shadow over the lofty gender integration goals set by former President Barack Obama.

Overall, women unexpectedly leave their stations on Navy ships as much as 50 percent more frequently to return to land duty, according to documents obtained from the Navy. The statistics were compiled by the Navy Personnel Command at the request of TheDCNF, covering the period from January 2015 to September 2016.

The evacuation of pregnant women is costly for the Navy. Jude Eden, a nationally known author about women in the military who served in 2004 as a Marine deployed to Iraq, said a single transfer can cost the Navy up to $30,000 for each woman trained for a specific task, then evacuated from an active duty ship and sent to land. That figure translates into $115 million in expenses for 2016 alone . . .

“A pregnancy takes you out of action for about two years. And there’s no replacement,” said Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a nonpartisan public policy organization. “So everybody else has to work all that harder,” adding that on small ships and on submarines, “you really have a potential crew disaster.” (Read more from “Deployed US Navy Has a Pregnancy Problem, and It’s Getting Worse” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Conservative Leaders Call on Trump to Protect Religious Freedom

/0 Comments/in , /by

Conservative leaders are calling for President Donald Trump to move forward on an executive order to protect the exercise of religious beliefs by rolling back Obama-era regulations that targeted Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army, a military chaplain, Christian business owners, and others.

“The above individuals and groups, and many others like them, have either been punished by the government for their religious beliefs or are about to suffer under Obama-era anti-religious regulations,” wrote more than 150 conservative movement leaders to Trump in a letter on Wednesday.

“They need protections that you can grant through an executive order to prevent federal discrimination against them for acting in accordance with their beliefs,” the letter continues. “We urge you to take action to ensure their freedom to believe and live out those beliefs is protected from government punishment.”

The Daily Signal asked White House press secretary Sean Spicer about the pending executive order on Monday.

“I think we’ve discussed executive orders in the past, and for the most part we’re not going to get into discussing what may or may not come until we’re ready to announce it,” Spicer told The Daily Signal. “So I’m sure as we move forward we’ll have something.”

The White House did not immediately respond when asked about the letter Thursday.

The Council for National Policy, a conservative nonprofit, circulated the letter.

The signers included Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; Jenny Beth Martin, CEO and co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots; Morton Blackwell, president of the Leadership Institute; Colin Hanna, president of Let Freedom Ring; L. Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center; and Richard Viguerie, chairman of Conservative HQ.

Signers also include leaders at The Heritage Foundation, including former Ronald Reagan administration Attorney General Edwin Meese III and Becky Norton Dunlop, chairwoman of the Conservative Action Project and former Reagan White House adviser.

The letter goes on to cite numerous examples, such as federal grantees World Vision, the Salvation Army, the Adventist Development and Relief Agency, and Samaritan’s Purse facing the choice of violating their faith or giving up federal grants.

The letter similarly cited the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor charity resisting the Obamacare mandate on contraception and abortion-inducing drugs.

The letter goes on to note: “Service members like Navy Chaplain Wes Modder have been disciplined for counseling according to their Christian beliefs about natural marriage.”

The Obama administration even took actions against religious freedom through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as the letter notes in one case, saying:

Under a policy issued by the Obama administration’s agriculture secretary, a [U.S. Department of Agriculture] official threatened to remove all USDA inspectors if West Michigan Beef Company owner Donald Vander Boon didn’t permanently refrain from placing in the company’s breakroom religious literature supporting marriage between one man and one woman that the department deemed ‘offensive.’ The Vander Boons were forced to choose between their religious beliefs and having their plant closed and their employees left jobless.

(For more from the author of “Conservative Leaders Call on Trump to Protect Religious Freedom” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.