10th Circuit Trumps the Ten Commandments

/0 Comments/in , /by

We already know the courts treat our Constitution as unconstitutional. Laws pertaining to our history, traditions, founding values, national sovereignty, marriage, and immigration are all unconstitutional. And the ideals that are authentically unconstitutional … well … they are enshrined into the highest levels of the Constitution.

In case you thought this sentiment is unique to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, think again. It is the majority view in most circuits.

Here is example #30,000,000 why the lower courts are irremediably broken — with every Democrat appointee and half the GOP appointees signing onto some of the most radical views imaginable.

Last November, we reported that a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit forced the city of Bloomfield, New Mexico to uproot its monument of the Ten Commandments from the grounds of its city hall. In one of the most absurd displays of judicial supremacy, the court gave standing to random citizens to sue against an inanimate object that creates absolutely no redressable grievance of an injury in fact.

In addition, the court flipped the Establishment Clause on its head. The judges of the district and circuit courts — including GOP appointees — took a clause designed to protect states from the federal government mandating adoption of a particular religion and bastardized its interpretation to mean the eradication of all religious symbols from a local government in ISIS-like fashion.

Last week, the full en banc panel of the 10th Circuit refused to hear an appeal, thus allowing the unconstitutional power grab to stand. The court rejected the request for a full-panel review by a vote of 8-2. Neil Gorsuch, current nominee for Supreme Court, did not participate in the vote. Once again, every Democrat appointee signed onto this craziness, and only two of the four GOP-appointed judges would have reheard the case. This is another demonstration of why the lower courts are irremediably broken.

The two dissenting judges, Timothy Tymkovich and Paul Kelly, issued a scholarly rebuke of their colleagues and schooled them on the true origins and meaning of the Establishment Clause. As Judge Tymkovich points out, “The Establishment Clause was about keeping the national government from exercising power over churches,” not the other way around, and certainly not to eradicate religious expression from the public square:

This distinction between religion generally and the church specifically also makes sense in light of the historical practices of the First Congress. On the same day the House of Representatives voted to “make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it then proposed a resolution requesting President George Washington to set aside a “day of public humiliation and prayer” in his Thanksgiving Day Proclamation.

This took place on September 25, 1789. President Washington issued the proclamation on October 3 to be observed on November 26 that same year. What was the nature of this public day of prayer? To beseech God “to pardon our national and other transgressions” and “to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue.” And this was at the federal level. Now these same courts say states can’t even display replicas that existed since our founding on public property.

Fun fact: Just four days prior to President Washington’s October proclamation, the House passed the final version of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which created the entire structure and jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.

No less a figure than John Marshall himself said (Durousseau v. United States, 1810) that implicit in this bill was the exercising of Article III, Section 2, which grants the judiciary only the jurisdiction provided to it by Congress and that this bill placed a “negative on the exercise of such appellate power as is not comprehended within it [the bill].”

So let’s get this straight: In the same week that Congress granted the judiciary its jurisdiction, it also passed the Bill of Rights — including the Establishment Clause — and called for a national day of prayer.

This day of prayer and thanksgiving to God, in the words of the great Roger Sherman, was to replicate through the celebration of the Constitution, “the solemn thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon, after the building of the Temple,” a “precedent in holy writ” he thought “worthy of Christian imitation on the present occasion.” Yet the judiciary is now saying the Constitution is reason to eradicate God’s name from our country and that they have jurisdiction to do so!

In fact, as I’ve noted before, the only true violation of the Establishment Clause is the requirement of the sexual identity religion to force individual business owners to actually service their religion in contravention to the conscience rights of the owner.

It is truly hard to conceive a nightmare scenario in which the Constitution and our history would be contorted in a more dramatic fashion than what the courts are doing today. Yet this is the logical outcome of a generation of law students who have been indoctrinated into a belief system that replaces the house of worship for the courtroom and an entertainment industry that glorifies the legal profession.

This is a lawsuit that should be rejected by 100 percent of Republican and Democrat appointees, irrespective of their personal religious or political beliefs. It upends our Constitution, tradition, and history and rules our heritage illegal. Yet every Democrat and half the Republicans backhandedly overruled our foundation. You tell me this system is salvageable?! (And if past history is any indication, don’t expect Chief Justice Roberts to grant an appeal to defendants.)

Where is Congress? Where is the outrage and use of numerous tools to block implementation of these sort of misconceived decisions or to strip the courts of their jurisdiction? What about a simple resolution of disapproval? Instead, the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 40%) has propagated the dictates of the 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not criticize a judge. It’s just a shame those very same judges already abolished the first Ten Commandments. (For more from the author of “10th Circuit Trumps the Ten Commandments” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Freedom Caucus Just Showed the GOP What a REAL Backbone Looks Like

/0 Comments/in , /by

The House Freedom Caucus demonstrated what it is to have a political backbone on Monday evening. After a meeting with Vice President Mike Pence, Freedom Caucus members told reporters that they will not support any Obamacare repeal short of the 2015 plan that would have gutted the Medicaid expansion, some Obamacare taxes, the Obamacare subsidies, and the individual and employer mandates.

“‘If it’s less than the 2015 [bill], we oppose it,'” Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C. (A, 94%) said after the meeting, according to The Huffington Post.

Not even 24 hours later, the caucus’ red line was undercut by House leadership, with Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. (F, 51%) declaring that the House would continue to pursue a “step by step” approach to repeal — a far cry from the “root and branch” rallying cry Republican leaders used during the Obama years.

As Freedom Caucus ink slinger Matt Fuller reported at The Huffington Post, “Now that conservatives are demanding the repeal meet the 2015 standard, it could be even more difficult for GOP leaders to find coalitions in the House and Senate.” Hence, a “root and branch” Republican leadership cave from repealing Obamacare “root and branch” to now a “step by step” approach.

Fuller thinks that the hard line the Freedom Caucus is taking will kill the repeal effort. And, knowing Republicans, he’s probably right.

But it’s the right thing for the Freedom Caucus to draw the line somewhere, and it’s not even that provocative of a line. As Conservative Review reported at the time, the 2015 Obamacare repeal would have still left 82 percent of Obamacare intact, including most of the taxes and provisions like the Medicare payroll tax, limits to Heath Flexible Spending Accounts, and an annual fee on health insurance providers.

So to the extent that Republicans shrink away from a substantive Obamacare repeal, it’s not on the Freedom Caucus’ name and shoulders. It’s the problem of party leadership and moderate Republicans growing skittish about following through on something they promised the American people they would do if granted the power.

Referring to skittish Republicans who already voted for something similar in 2015, Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho (A, 93%) told Fuller: “They voted for it already, so, be consistent.”

Exactly. (For more from the author of “The Freedom Caucus Just Showed the GOP What a REAL Backbone Looks Like” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Truth About Sanctuary Cities and Crime Rates

/0 Comments/in , /by

If restricting local law enforcement from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests is supposed to make communities safer, as some immigration advocates and law enforcement officials suggest, I’d like to hear them reconcile their beliefs with the actions of Texas’ Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez.

Hernandez, sworn in as the newly elected head of the Travis County Sheriff’s Department last month, almost immediately adopted an anti-cooperation policy prohibiting her department from honoring nearly all ICE detainer requests.

“The public must be confident that local law enforcement is focused on local public safety, not on federal immigration enforcement,” Hernandez said.

Detainer requests are notices sent by ICE to local jurisdictions informing them of its desire to take physical custody of an individual in local custody.

The sheriff’s new policy stipulated that only four exempted crimes—murder, capital murder, aggravated sexual assault, and human trafficking—would be grounds for her department to honor an ICE detainer.

Unfortunately for the alleged victim of Hugo Javier Gallardo-Gonzalez and the community at large, accusations of repeatedly sexually abusing a child did not meet the criminal standard for ICE cooperation set by the sheriff.

Gallardo-Gonzalez was arrested this past Sunday, accused of sexually assaulting his girlfriend’s young daughter beginning in 2014. The abuse is alleged to have continued for over a year.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement submitted a detainer request to the Travis County Sheriff’s Office in order to take custody of Gallardo-Gonzalez, but their request was denied.

Gallardo-Gonzalez subsequently made bail the next day and is now waiting to be released once outfitted with a GPS monitor.

The decision by Hernandez to deny the ICE detainer request was reckless and borders on malfeasance.

Whose well-being is served by the decision to dismiss this ICE detainer request and release into the public an individual accused of a particularly heinous crime? Is the public safer as a result? Is the community of illegal individuals safer?

The answers to those questions seem clear enough. No one, save perhaps the accused man, is better off for the decision by the sheriff to deny assistance to ICE.

But this reality doesn’t conform to the narrative repeated by many that suggest law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities hurts public safety and erodes police and community relations.

Mayor Javier Gonzales of Santa Fe, New Mexico, argued only months ago that sanctuary cities have no impact on crime, stating, “Study after study have shown that sanctuary cities do not lead to an increase in crime because of the presence of people that are undocumented.”

But a 2014 draft study conducted by ICE doesn’t support the mayor’s notion that sanctuary cities have no impact on crime.

The study found that during the observation time frame (January 2014 to August 2014), 8,145 individuals were released from jail after arrest due to their respective jurisdictions declining an immigration detainer request from ICE.

Of the 8,145 individuals released, 1,867 were subsequently re-arrested a total of 4,298 times and accumulated a staggering 7,491 charges.

So much for the argument that sanctuary cities have no impact on crime.

The notion that local law enforcement cooperation with ICE will somehow also destroy police and community relations—specifically relations between the police and communities of illegal immigrants—is tenuous.

No community of decent people—citizens, illegal immigrants, or otherwise—wants to live in a society beset by violence and social dysfunction. Stripping local law enforcement of the ability to merely cooperate with their federal counterparts on issues as plain as the removal of a dangerous criminal jeopardizes the safety of all law-abiding individuals.

Hernandez and her refusal to cooperate with ICE on the removal of an individual accused of sexual assault against a child demonstrates the absurdity of those devoted to a dogmatic faith in sanctuary cities. Clarity and perspective should rule the day, especially when public safety is at stake. (For more from the author of “The Truth About Sanctuary Cities and Crime Rates” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lawmakers Are Using Congressional Review Act to Dismantle Obama Regulations

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the four weeks since President Donald Trump was inaugurated, congressional lawmakers have moved to address some of the 22,700 regulations adopted under President Barack Obama.

“There has not been nearly as much attention paid to this issue as there should have been,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “I think President [Ronald] Reagan focused on this and I think President Trump is focusing more on this issue than any other president since Reagan.”

The tool Congress is using to undo these regulations is known as the Congressional Review Act, which allows it to repeal executive branch regulations.

Three resolutions disapproving of Obama-era regulations have been adopted by both the House and Senate since Trump’s inauguration and 24 more have been introduced in the House, according to James Gattuso, a senior research fellow who studies regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation.

On Wednesday, the Senate adopted a resolution by a margin of 57-43 disapproving a regulation finalized during Obama’s last weeks in office that would “prevent some Americans with disabilities from purchasing or possessing firearms based on their decision to seek Social Security benefits.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a prepared floor statement on Wednesday that this resolution of disapproval included 32 bipartisan co-sponsors in the Senate and was supported by a myriad of civil rights groups and disability organizations.

“Repealing this regulation will ensure that disabled citizens’ Second Amendment rights are protected,” Grassley’s statement said. “Those rights will no longer be able to be revoked without a hearing and without due process. It will take more than the personal opinion of a bureaucrat.”

Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email that “Congress is moving expeditiously to invalidate rules that never should have been adopted.”

“This will lift the burdens felt by the average person from needless rules,” Larkin added.

The Congressional Review Act also prevents agencies from creating similar rules with similar language.

“ … Once Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval and the president signs it into law, the rule is nullified and the agency cannot adopt a ‘substantially similar’ rule absent an intervening act of Congress,” Larkin wrote in a commentary article.

Passed in 1996 in concert with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act and then-Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America reform agenda, the Congressional Review Act, according to the Congressional Research Service, “is an oversight tool that Congress may use to overturn a rule issued by a federal agency.”

Until this year, the Congressional Review Act had been used successfully only once in 2001 to repeal a regulation created during the Clinton administration pertaining to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

However, with a Republican House, Senate, and White House, conservative lawmakers have the votes needed to adopt the joint resolutions of disapproval for each regulation and a president who will sign them.

On Tuesday, Trump signed a resolution reversing “[a] costly regulation that threatened to put domestic extraction companies and their employees at an unfair disadvantage,” according to the Office of the Press Secretary.

Repealing the domestic extraction regulation that Trump signed Tuesday “could save American businesses as much as $600 million annually,” according to the office.

Lee, the Utah senator, said the Congressional Review Act will help reverse the financial burden of regulations.

“During the final months of President Obama’s presidency, during what some refer to as the ‘midnight period,’ unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch were very busy and they issued a flurry of regulations,” Lee said. “ And, it is significant that those regulations will impose … billion[s] [of dollars] … in compliance costs on the American people.”

Rachel Bovard, director of policy services at The Heritage Foundation, said the Congressional Review Act undoes regulations that harm American free enterprise.

“The successful use of the [Congressional Review Act] is not only good for the balance of powers, it’s good for American businesses, our economy, and a positive development for any American seeking to live their life with minimal government intrusion,” Bovard said in an email to The Daily Signal.

Trump is also expected to sign another joint resolution of disapproval, which undoes a rule “that would establish onerous requirements for coal mining operations, and impose significant compliance burdens on America’s coal production.”

Bovard said the Congressional Review Act is the ideal tool to bring accountability back to governing.

“The use of the Congressional Review Act is a welcome act by Congress to assert itself as a co-equal branch of government,” Bovard said. “Unelected bureaucrats should not write laws—and it’s up to Congress, through the use of the CRA, to disprove regulations that were not written as Congress intended.”

Gattuso said the timing for repealing regulations imposed by Obama is ripe for leaders in Congress.

“After 20 years of almost complete disuse, the stars have aligned to make the [Congressional Review Act] the vehicle of choice by members of Congress wanting to roll back recent Obama regulations,” Gattuso said in an email to The Daily Signal. (For more from the author of “Lawmakers Are Using Congressional Review Act to Dismantle Obama Regulations” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Decides to Keep Obama’s Radical LGBT Special Envoy, Aiding the Destruction of Traditional Cultures, Imposing American Perversity, Worldwide

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump is keeping in place a special international LGBT “envoy” established by the Obama administration to promote acceptance of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism abroad in the name of U.S. foreign policy.

The reinstatement of open homosexual Randy Berry as Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons was reported Monday by the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade. It is another blow to pro-family advocates who oppose the LGBT agenda and are counting on Trump to root out homosexual and abortion activists from the foreign affairs bureaucracy after eight years of Obama’s leftist policies.

“Keeping Berry only signals to the world that the extreme agenda of the Obama years is still deeply entrenched in the State Department,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

A career foreign service officer who speaks Spanish and Arabic, Berry was given the international “LGBT Envoy” position in 2015. The appointment delighted homosexual activists, who in recent years have turned their attention to less developed nations overseas after accomplishing much of their agenda in the West.

Berry is a committed pro-LGTQ activist who is dedicated to seeing other nations adopt the postmodern Western legal system that grants “rights,” including “marriage,” based on homosexuality and extreme gender deviance. In December, he joined other openly homosexual U.S. diplomats in speaking at an “LGBT Leaders” conference in D.C. sponsored by the Gay & Lesbian Victory Institute. (Read more from “Trump Decides to Keep Obama’s Radical LGBT Special Envoy, Aiding the Destruction of Traditional Cultures, Imposing American Perversity, Worldwide” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Obama Is Scheming to Sabotage Trump’s Presidency

/0 Comments/in , , /by

When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.

In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.

Since Donald Trump’s election, this little-known but well-funded protesting arm has beefed up staff and ramped up recruitment of young liberal activists, declaring on its website, “We’re not backing down.” Determined to salvage Obama’s legacy,”it’s drawing battle lines on immigration, ObamaCare, race relations and climate change.

Obama is intimately involved in OFA operations and even tweets from the group’s account. In fact, he gave marching orders to OFA foot soldiers following Trump’s upset victory. (Read more from “How Obama Is Scheming to Sabotage Trump’s Presidency” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

UNBELIEVABLE: Far Left Trump Haters Calling for Genocide Against White People, Press Totally Silent

/0 Comments/in , , /by

As Americans who recognize the equal place under God of every person, and under law of every citizen, whatever his background, would we find it acceptable if conservative organizations started cooperating with white nationalists?

What if Republicans organized protests against left-wing campus speakers employing violent gangs of whites who wanted to stop non-whites from having children, because they regard other races as a plague on our species?

What if a conservative newspaper employed a spokesman for a radical white racist group, and he wrote on social media that all black men are a threat to public safety? Or if the co-founder of that organization described non-whites as genetically defective, the result of destructive mutations? Imagine if groups with racist agendas like these had instigated riots after the election of President Obama.

No one would need to wait for the social justice left to be outraged at such uncivil, hateful, and destructive abuse of free speech. People from all across the spectrum, including every Christian conservative leader in the country, would step forth to distance themselves from these ideas, and demand that the relevant GOP officials and conservative leaders who’d cooperated with those racists be removed from their positions.

So why are we hearing crickets from Democratic and liberal leaders about the thuggish tactics of the “Antifa” (supposedly anti-fascist) demonstrators who rioted at UC Berkeley when Milo Yiannopolis tried to speak by invitation? Since these groups’ attack on Constitutionally protected free political speech at a college campus doesn’t seem to bother anyone on the high-minded left, maybe this news will: The “Antifa” group in Seattle appears to have posted fliers warning white people not to have children:

Just an isolated incident that might have been a fake? Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so. But there’s evidence that such attitudes go far beyond Seattle. The Toronto Sun reports that Yusra Khogali, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, revealed the same racist agenda, aimed at eliminating white people:

Yusra-Tweet

Even professional journalists feel emboldened to engage in such dangerous talk. Shaun King, a highly visible activist in Black Lives Matter who works for a mainstream liberal tabloid, The New York Daily News, responded to the appalling news that former Penn State athletic coach Jerry Sandusky’s son has been arrested for sexually abusing children (as his father did) with this uplifting reflection:

We have already seen that colleges are removing writers like Shakespeare and Milton from reading lists, solely because they are white men. MTV published a public service announcement in which non-whites and women told white men how to rectify their misbehavior in public. (You might enjoy The Stream‘s tongue-in-cheek response: “My 2017 Resolutions for Minorities and Women.)

But really, there’s nothing funny at all about this kind of divisive rhetoric, or the dangerous undercurrents of group hatred that underlie it. What we’re seeing is the tip of the iceberg, the statements and actions of those who feel bold and secure enough to vent their secret feelings in public. Such open expression of ethnic hatred, unrebuked and virtually unanswered, is profoundly destructive. It’s the kind of talk we saw in Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s, as the prelude to organized violence.

The whole point of the Civil Rights Movement was to remove the question of race from issues of citizenship, to exorcise at last the demon of tribalism from American public life. Those claiming to speak on behalf of minority groups, who lapse into language that would have made racists like Margaret Sanger proud, are betraying everything that Civil Rights demonstrators worked, fought, and died for. (For more from the author of “Far Left Trump Haters Calling for Genocide Against White People” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump, Netanyahu to Reset US-Israeli Relations After Strained 8 Years

/0 Comments/in , /by

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House on Wednesday will mark a chance for the United States and Israel to renew a relationship that had turned tumultuous in the eight years under President Barack Obama’s administration, experts say.

“It probably won’t take long to return to the warm relationship that has characterized the U.S.-Israeli relationship before,” said Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, in a phone interview with The Daily Signal.

Israel strongly opposed the Obama administration-led Iran nuclear deal, which President Donald Trump is against. Also, the Obama administration abstained from a vote on the United Nations Security Council condemning Israel for its settlements.

Schanzer believes both the Iran deal and the settlements issue can be addressed without too much controversy.

“With the settlements, there was common ground reached by Bush and Ariel Sharon, which allowed Israelis to continue to build in areas that already have significant Israeli population,” Schanzer said, referring to former President George W. Bush and Sharon, a former Israeli prime minister.

Schanzer added it might be difficult to undo the entire Iran nuclear deal, which relieved sanctions on the country, and was agreed upon by the United States and five other countries. However, it’s likely Trump will enforce the agreement in a way Obama would not.

“It will be about rigorous enforcement of the deal and not allowing Iran to cheat even in minor ways,” Schanzer said. “The Obama administration wouldn’t enforce this out of fear the deal would unravel. Trump doesn’t care about Obama’s foreign policy legacy.”

If the deal is enforced, Iran might be the country that walks away, said Jim Phillips, senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at The Heritage Foundation.

“It’s difficult to walk away from the deal now without putting Iran in a better place [than before the deal was made],” Phillips told The Daily Signal. “If the U.S. is out, it’s very unlikely that Russia or China would reimpose international sanctions on Iran.”

Phillips said with vigorous enforcement, Iran is likely to violate the deal, which will mean sanctions should be imposed again.

Though Obama and Netanyahu had a rocky relationship, Trump called Netanyahu during his first week in office.

Trump reportedly said settlements might not help the peace process. Israel’s parliament voted in favor of continuing settlements.

Another major issue could be moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

“Israel supports the move and the U.S. wants to do it in a way that respects security for all in the region,” Schanzer said. “For the U.S., it’s not as complicated as it might seem. It is a very achievable goal if the administration remains committed to it.”

Phillips believes the administration should move slowly on this matter.

“The administration has signaled it will move very cautiously, as they should, because this has the potential to be an explosive issue and could ignite a firestorm even with some allies in the Middle East,” Phillips said. “I would think they will do that this year, but maybe not in the next few months.” (For more from the author of “Trump, Netanyahu to Reset US-Israeli Relations After Strained 8 Years” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

States Cry out for Relief From Judicial Tyranny. Will Congress Respond?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last week, the Arizona House of Representatives passed a House Concurrent Memorial urging Congress “to divide the Ninth Circuit into two separate circuits,” citing a long list of systemic flaws and alleged abuses the court has visited on the people of the Grand Canyon State (editor’s note: better known as judicial tyranny).

“Arizona’s values and laws have long been under assault from an appeals court that is overburdened, overturned far too often, and devoid of justice for many of its petitioners,” reads a statement from Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. about the memorial, who has introduced legislation aimed at remedying the situation.

The bill, H.R 250, would split the more conservative western states from their far Left-leaning coastal counterparts in order to free them “from the burdensome and undue influence of the 9th Circuit Court” with the creation of a new 12th Circuit court.

Currently the circuit is composed of nine Western states and the territory of Guam. What this means in practice is, thanks to blue slip tradition in the judiciary committee, liberal jurists from California, Oregon and Washington end up ruling on cases in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, and Montana. A similar bill in the Senate would also split the circuit, but disagrees on whether or not Washington state should remain part of the Ninth.

“The Ninth Circuit cannot handle the number of states currently entrapped within its jurisdiction, causing access to justice to be delayed,” reads a release from Biggs’ office. “Worse still, the Ninth Circuit has the highest reversal rate in the country, topping 75 percent.”

Resting on the argument that the circuit is too big and too slow with moving its caseload, the press release stops short of saying that the Ninth Circuit encapsulates nearly the entire mountain time zone inside a jurisprudential clown show. But it does that, too.

For example, a week before all eyes were fixed on the three-judge panel that kept in place the Temporary Restraining Order, the same court denied an en banc hearing to the state of Arizona, which it previously forced to issue drivers’ licenses to illegals under Obama’s DACA executive amnesty program.

“Arizona has no cognizable interest in making the distinction it has for drivers’ licenses purposes,” said Judge Harry Pregerson on Feb. 3. “The federal government, not the states, holds exclusive authority concerning direct matters of immigration law.” Twenty-four judges concurred with the ruling; a mere five dissented.

Perhaps Judge Pregerson just forgot that immigration law is the purview of Congress – who repeatedly struck down the DREAM Act – not the executive branch, as Judge Alex Kozinski points out in the dissent. But such is par for the course in the nutty Ninth Circuit.

It makes complete sense that the people of Arizona, and probably the citizens of other states in the region, are tired of far-Left social transformation without representation and calling out for relief from it. The only question is whether they’ll get it. (For more from the author of “Arizona Cries out for Relief From Judicial Tyranny. Will Congress Respond?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Progress So Far on 2016 Promises

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump hasn’t yet repealed and replaced Obamacare, or achieved 4 percent economic growth just shy of one month in office. But the new president has begun to deliver on several other campaign promises.

Trump issued executive orders to begin constructing the border wall and curb burdensome Obamacare regulations until the law is replaced. He also issued executive orders and took other actions to try to boost the economy by reducing regulation and promoting manufacturing.

Here’s a look at progress and achievements in three broad categories for action that Trump routinely talked about during the campaign, including a total of 13 promises:

Make America Work Again

Promise 1: More American Jobs

Trump, on Jan. 27, announced the Manufacturing Jobs Initiative to gather “some of the world’s most successful and creative business leaders to share their experience and gain their insights.”

Trump hosted Intel CEO Brian Krzanich on Feb. 8 at the White House. Krzanich announced the company will build a factory in Chandler, Arizona, that will create 3,000 jobs and another 10,000 “indirect” jobs for area residents.

Promise 2: Energy Independence

Just four days after taking office, Trump issued presidential memorandums on two major oil pipelines. He signed one to expedite building the Dakota Access pipeline, which the Obama administration had stalled, and another to encourage construction of the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, which the Obama administration had halted.

Promise 3: Economic Growth

This promise centers on tax reform, regulatory reform, and what the administration calls sensible infrastructure.

Trump signed a bill into law Feb. 14, voiding a Securities and Exchange Commission rule requiring fossil fuel companies and mining companies to disclose production-related payments to foreign governments. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich.

Trump issued a presidential memorandum for a regulatory freeze until the agency head appointed by the president has reviewed the regulation.

Trump made building or repairing infrastructure and boosting manufacturing central to his campaign.

On the same day as the two pipeline memorandums, Trump also issued an executive order “expediting environmental reviews and approvals for high priority infrastructure projects.”

In another presidential memorandum, Trump directed departments and agencies to support expanded manufacturing through streamlining permitting reviews and reducing regulations.

On Jan. 30, just 10 days into his presidency, Trump issued an executive order requiring that for every new regulation the government imposes, it must rescind two.

A few days later, Feb. 3, Trump issued an executive order creating “core principles for regulating the United States financial system.”

Promise 4: Help the Inner Cities

This category includes law enforcement, jobs, and school choice. On Feb. 9, Trump issued an executive order directing the attorney general to establish a task force on reducing crime and increasing public safety.

The same day, he issued an executive order to “strengthen enforcement of federal law to thwart transnational criminal organizations” such as gangs, cartels, and racketeers.

Make America Safe Again

Promise 5: Border Security, ‘Extreme Vetting’

Trump has indicated he will ask Congress for an initial payment to build a wall at the border with Mexico—a project already authorized under the 2006 Secure Fence Act. After that, he said, he will seek reimbursement from the Mexican government.

On Jan. 25, Trump signed a series of executive orders regarding immigration, his signature issue during the campaign. One order called for “immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism.”

Trump also issued an order scaling back funding for “sanctuary cities,” the term for municipalities that refuse to cooperate with federal officials in enforcing immigration law.

Two days later, Trump signed an executive order restricting immigration from seven terrorism-prone Middle Eastern countries, probably the most controversial action of his presidency thus far.

The administration calls this approach “extreme vetting,” but critics charge it is a “Muslim ban.” The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco last week upheld a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the measure.

Promise 6: Strengthen America’s Role in the World

Trump signed a memorandum Jan. 27 calling for “rebuilding of the U.S. armed forces.”

On Jan. 28, Trump signed a memorandum requiring a comprehensive plan to defeat the Islamic State, the terrorist army also known as ISIS, by the end of February. He directed that it include new defense strategies and any needed changes in public diplomacy efforts.

Since his inauguration Jan. 20, Trump has hosted British Prime Minister Theresa May, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the White House. On Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to visit.

Promise 7: End the Iran Nuclear Deal

Though it wasn’t related directly to the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration, the Trump White House signaled a strong shift in attitude toward Iran.

The Trump administration, through the Treasury Department, on Feb. 4 imposed 25 sanctions on individuals and companies with ties to Iran in retaliation for the Islamic regime’s ballistic missile tests.

Make America Great Again

Promise 8: Repeal Obamacare

Hours after being sworn in, Trump issued an executive order directing agencies to act to minimize the burdens of the Affordable Care Act as much as possible by law, until Congress votes to repeal and replace the health care law.

Promise 9: ‘Drain the Swamp’

On Jan. 28, Trump issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to demand “ethics commitments” from employees hired on or after Jan. 20. This means these employees are committed contractually not to become lobbyists within five years of leaving government, and never to work as a lobbyist for a foreign entity after leaving government service.

In a rarity this early in his presidency, Trump on Feb. 4 signed a bill passed by Congress to allow the Government Accountability Office to gather more records from federal agencies during investigations.

Promise 10: Reverse Executive Overreach, Reduce Size of Government

Three days after his inauguration, Trump signed a memorandum to freeze federal hiring except for reasons of national security and public safety.

Promise 11: Put America First

This includes promoting American exceptionalism and founding principles. Three days after taking office, Trump signed a memorandum ordering withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal with 11 other countries. The Obama administration entered into the pact but the Senate had not ratified it. Many Republicans supported the trade deal and many Democrats opposed it, but lawmakers’ positions did not fall along party lines.

When Trump issued executive orders on the Keystone and Dakota oil pipelines, he issued another order requiring new pipelines to be constructed with steel and other raw materials made in the United States.

Promise 12: Nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the Scalia Mold

Trump vowed to name a like-minded successor to Justice Antonin Scalia, who died a year ago Monday. On Jan. 31, Trump announced his nomination of 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy left by Scalia’s unexpected death. Trump pledged during the campaign to nominate someone with a judicial philosophy similar to Scalia’s originalism.

Promise 13: End Common Core, Restore Local Control of Education

Trump has yet to take action on this front, but the Senate confirmed his nominee for education secretary, Betsy DeVos, and she started work Feb. 7.

DeVos was the head of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, founded by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a strong proponent of Common Core. DeVos has primarily advocated school choice programs to compete with failing public schools.

After Trump nominated her for the position, DeVos explained that she had not actively supported Common Core.

“Have organizations that I have been a part of supported Common Core? Of course. But that’s not my position. Sometimes it’s not just students who need to do their homework,” DeVos wrote. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Progress So Far on 2016 Promises” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.