Levin: Who Will Pay for Trump’s Wall? I Don’t Care. Build It!

/0 Comments/in , /by

Tuesday night on his radio show, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin ripped through on the mainstream media babble over who is going to pay for America’s border wall per Donald Trump’s executive order earlier the same day.

“I don’t care if Mexico’s paying for it or not,” Levin said. “Build it!”

Reminding listeners that he believed the Mexican government was never going to directly pay for the wall, Levin confronted recent mainstream media fixation on the prospect that the burden will ultimately fall to taxpayers in the United States.

“Now they’re worried about the American taxpayer!” Levin exclaimed, referencing a recent ABC interview in which President Trump was repeatedly questioned on the subject .

“They’re not worried about the American taxpayer and all the costs associated with illegal immigration!” he continued, referencing the financial burdens created by the illegal population on such areas as education, healthcare, social services, and law enforcement. “No, they’re worried about the American taxpayer when they want to secure the damn border.”

Listen:

“I don’t care” who pays for it, he continued. “I really don’t. The federal government pisses away over $125 billion a year, so take a small portion of that and take care of that border!” (For more from the author of “Levin: Who Will Pay for Trump’s Wall? I Don’t Care. Build It!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Already Making Good on Campaign Promises, Says Newt Gingrich

/0 Comments/in , /by

Less than a week into his presidency, Donald Trump has already acted on the promises he made to the American people, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said.

Speaking Wednesday at The Heritage Foundation for the fifth of a six-part series on understanding Trump and Trumpism, Gingrich said the president, thus far, has shown a commitment to upholding the will of the people.

According to Gingrich, Trump’s early days in the White House are just a taste of the results we can expect to see in the next four years.

“This inaugural rose directly out of a two-year campaign and has now led into the first week of activism,” he said. “What’s he focusing on—job creation, immigration, shrinking government—all the things he campaigned on. Guess what that probably means—he’s probably going to continue to do just this.”

Trump’s commitment—which helped him beat 16 Republican candidates, the elite news media, and a billion-dollar Hillary Clinton campaign—has left his critics appalled.

“Of course, it shocks all the liberals because it turns out he may actually have meant what he campaigned on, which people voted for,” Gingrich said. “That puts him so outside liberalism and outside the traditional establishment that it’s unthinkable. Therefore, it can’t be true.”

Gingrich noted the latest incident to enrage the left: Trump’s plan to launch an investigation of mass voter fraud.

“The elite media doesn’t want to cope with it, but the fact is Donald J. Trump has been saying consistently as a candidate and as a president, we have a problem with voter fraud in America,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich argued that the Democratic Party would be in “real trouble” if only legal citizens were allowed to vote.

“They can’t win in an election that only involves people who are legal citizens of the United States and alive, which I think are two reasonable criteria for being allowed to vote,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich’s remarks focused largely on the themes of Trump’s inaugural address. Gingrich said Trump’s speech was about the people, which is something Americans can continue to expect from Trump.

“What is the Trumpian revolution about?” Gingrich questioned. “It’s about the citizens joined in a great national effort, rebuilding the country and restoring its promise for all of our citizens.”

While Trump’s message was “America first,” Gingrich said Trump will “put America first within a world system.”

“If he negotiates with Mexico and when he meets with the Mexican president later on, guess what he expects the Mexican president to do,” Gingrich said. “He expects him to represent Mexico. He’s just asking for the right to represent America.”

Trump’s “moral obligation” to both God and the American people will allow him to deliver on his promises, Gingrich suggested.

“If we do what we promised to do, if we do what Trump promised in his inaugural, we would be in a fight consistently from now till either we win or they win,” he said. “That’s why this is so important.”

Gingrich will wrap up his six-part series on Trumpism at Heritage on Monday, Jan. 30. The speech will take place at 11 a.m. EST. (For more from the author of “Trump Already Making Good on Campaign Promises, Says Newt Gingrich” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump DOJ Likely to Find Many Offenses in Voter Fraud Probe, Experts Say

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump’s Justice Department will likely find numerous offenses to warrant launching a broad investigation into voter fraud, legal experts and watchdog groups say.

Trump has said that more than 3 million to 5 million illegal votes were cast during the 2016 election, causing him to receive a lower popular vote total than his vanquished opponent, Hillary Clinton, whom he defeated in the Electoral College.

On Wednesday, Trump said:

One legal organization took action on preventing voter fraud this week. The Public Interest Legal Foundation, a voter integrity group, reached a consent decree with Noxubee County, Mississippi, which has had voter registration that exceeds the number of county residents since 2011, according to the group. A consent decree is a legal agreement between two parties without an acknowledgment of guilt.

The decree includes requiring the county to identify dead voters on the rolls, clear voter rolls of former county residents, and mail all registered voters who have been inactive since January 2011.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation this week is also seeking to pry the release of information about noncitizens registered to vote in Manassas, Virginia.

Logan Churchwell, spokesman for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, said it is good that the Justice Department won’t just leave it to the nonprofit groups to weed out fraud.

“We need to know how many noncitizens are voting and know the unknowns,” Churchwell told The Daily Signal. “Trump could just enforce the law. The giant research project he tweeted about, or had a series of tweets about, is worthwhile and only something the federal government could do.”

It’s likely that 800,000 noncitizens illegally voted in the last presidential election, according to Jesse Richman, an associate professor of political science at Old Dominion University, who extrapolated on a 2014 study that examined illegal voting in the 2008 and 2010 elections.

Before the 2016 election, there were several documented cases of voter fraud. These included an FBI probe that found 19 dead people were registered to vote in Harrisonburg, Virginia; a woman arrested in Des Moines, Iowa, for voting twice for Trump; and a CBS News investigation that found multiple cases of dead voters and double voting in Colorado.

8 Instances of Voter Fraud in 2016, and It’s Not Even Election Day Yet

Churchwell asserted Trump’s 3 million or more projection couldn’t be proven or disproven, but regardless of whether this is an overstatement, President Barack Obama’s Justice Department ignored Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, better known as the “motor voter” law. This provision requires local governments to maintain and keep voter rolls current.

The Obama administration has not enforced this provision of the motor voter law, and in Florida, Wisconsin, and Ohio, even took action to prevent maintaining the voter registration rolls.

Still others, such as Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice, a liberal legal group at the New York University School of Law, insisted voter fraud is a myth and opposed an investigation.

“An expensive investigation of imaginary voter fraud is not needed. It could easily devolve into a witch hunt,” Waldman said in a public statement. “Worse, it could be used to justify sweeping voting restrictions. There is no need for another investigation that is not independent, rigorous, and fact-based.”

Waldman continued:

There is a great deal of evidence that our voting system locks out far too many eligible citizens from voting. The voter registration system needs an upgrade, and that is something that should unite all Americans. Errors on the voter rolls are emphatically not signs of fraud—they are signs that we need to improve the system.

An investigation into voter fraud would not be complicated, said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group.

“You can see the numbers we are talking about by looking at public voter registration lists and cross-checking that against a list of noncitizens,” Fitton told The Daily Signal. “The federal government could coordinate with state and local governments and determine who registered to vote illegally. It’s a simple process. That’s why the left is so upset. They know the jig is up.”

Enforcing the law is long overdue, said Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation.

“We don’t need [to create] a commission. The Justice Department can enforce the law and work with the Department of Homeland Security, and its records for citizenship and change of status to get an idea of who is illegally registered to vote,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.

Regardless of the investigation’s outcome, von Spakovsky expects critics will dismiss anything that falls short of Trump’s 3 to 5 million illegal voter estimate.

“They may try to dismiss this, but the American people don’t believe what the media say about voter fraud not being real,” von Spakovsky said. “Polling solidifies that.” (For more from the author of “Trump DOJ Likely to Find Many Offenses in Voter Fraud Probe, Experts Say” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

House Speaker Paul Ryan Slates Obamacare Repeal for Spring

/0 Comments/in , /by

House Speaker Paul Ryan told House and Senate Republicans that lawmakers likely won’t repeal and replace Obamacare until March or April.

Speaking in the first major session of GOP lawmakers’ joint retreat in the City of Brotherly Love, Ryan said Wednesday that the health care law wouldn’t be repealed and subsequently replaced until spring.

“What we heard today was Obamacare is front and center,” Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., told reporters, referring to the first session of the retreat, which outlined President Donald Trump’s first 200 days in office, or the “200 Day Plan.”

“Repeal and replace,” Collins added. “The word was by the springtime.”

Trump apparently has come around to this timeframe, after suggesting he wanted to see Obamacare repealed and replaced much sooner. Trump is scheduled to address the group of about 290 lawmakers Thursday.

Republicans are using a budget tool called reconciliation to repeal Obamacare, and lawmakers took the first step toward getting rid of the law using the fast-track procedure earlier this month.

GOP lawmakers originally had set a Jan. 27 deadline to craft the repeal bill, but Republicans admitted they would miss that deadline.

Since at least 2010, Republicans have campaigned on getting rid of the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. Now that they have the chance—with control of the White House as well as both chambers of Congress—some Republicans consistently have called for its swift repeal.

One senior Republican aide told The Daily Signal that the health care law should be rolled back “as soon as possible” to “fulfill our promise to voters that enabled unified government.”

Republicans first plan to use budget reconciliation to repeal the health care law and implement parts of a replacement, Collins said.

The next step is to use administrative actions, spearheaded by Tom Price, Trump’s nominee as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, to continue to dismantle Obamacare.

Last, they’ll implement additional parts of a replacement through the House and Senate’s normal procedures, called regular order.

That third and final step in Republicans’ repeal-and-replace process would require Democrats’ support, however, since 60 votes are needed to override a filibuster to block action in the Senate. Republicans hold 52 seats in the 100-seat upper chamber.

Heading into the closed-doors joint retreat at Loews Philadelphia Hotel, House and Senate Republicans were expected to hash out the final details of their plan for repealing and replacing Obamacare.

Though lawmakers in both chambers agree on how they’ll repeal Obamacare, through the budget reconciliation process, they haven’t come to a consensus on which parts of the law they’ll dismantle.

Conservatives want to repeal as much of Obamacare as possible using the budget reconciliation tool, which requires only a simple majority of 51 votes to advance in the Senate.

But centrist and liberal Republicans such as Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Susan Collins of Maine want to keep Obamacare’s taxes in places.

Although the GOP lawmakers haven’t coalesced around a replacement for the law, they were scheduled to discuss proposals to do so at a session Thursday morning. (For more from the author of “House Speaker Paul Ryan Slates Obamacare Repeal for Spring” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

SCOTUS Declines to Protect Texas from Tyrannical Lower Court Injunction on Voter ID Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

Americans must show a form of photo ID to purchase a pack of Sudafed or to engage in any major transaction. Yet according to almost every lower court — including the “conservative” Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals — states can’t use their plenary power over election procedures to require a photo ID in order to protect the integrity of our democracy. Today, the Supreme Court declined to take up the appeal from the state of Texas in a bid to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s unconstitutional opinion.

My point is not to criticize the passive decision of the Supreme Court today, but rather to demonstrate how the entire conception of the modern federal judiciary as it relates to constitutional construction and its role in law-making is irremediably broken. And while it’s important to select the best nominee to SCOTUS as possible, merely “appointing good judges” alone will not save us from the tyranny of lower courts, absent wholesale judicial reform.

In Abbott v. Veasey, the Fifth Circuit upheld most of a district court’s ruling in describing Texas’s voter ID law as discriminatory against blacks, in violation of Section Two of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. The 9-6 en banc decision, which included some GOP-appointed judges, essentially said that blacks are too dumb and poor to provide a photo ID for the foundation of our democracy, even though they would be provided with one by the state free of charge. Today, the Supreme Court declined to take up the appeal. Chief Justice Roberts noted that because the case is not fully decided (it was remanded to the district court for further adjudication), he reserves the right to grant cert to a future appeal when the issue is finalized, but took a pass for the time being.

The decision from Roberts seems reasonable enough given the workload of the Supreme Court and that none of the conservatives, including Thomas, dissented from this denial (as he has done in previous denials of cert on important issues). However, this further proves my point about the broken nature of the judiciary. The capacity of good judges to do good is not nearly equal to the capacity of post-constitutional judges to do harm.

No state should have to wait even a single day to implement such a common sense regulation that is well within its constitutional powers. Yet, liberal groups have the ability to get an injunction against basic voter integrity laws within weeks and then encumber the law in the system for years. Even if we ultimately fill Scalia’s seat with an originalist, it will take years to grant relief to the states embattled by the legal profession and the lower courts. Unlike liberal Supreme Court justices who would take any opportunity to use their majority on the high court to overturn anything they disagree with from a lower court, conservative judges are never as aggressive the other way. The notion that a lower court, which is an institution created by Congress, can steal state powers away from the state — and that decision is not swatted down by the Supreme Court immediately — is one of the many reasons why we need wholesale reform.

Even if Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires and we successfully fill both her seat and Scalia’s seat with orginalists (relatively speaking), the 5-4 majority (yes, Kennedy is on the left) would not be a full safety valve for the Constitution. So much of the anti-constitutional jurisprudence surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment has been legitimized or at least tolerated by the legal Right that cases such as the Texas voter ID law will inhibit states from doing what they need to do to protect their elections in a timely fashion.

This is why, in addition to nominating the best judges to the Supreme Court, Congress should:

1. Immediately fill lower court vacancies and not wait the traditional six months to begin the process. [I’ll have more on this in a few days].

2. Finally harness their Article III Sec. 2 plenary power to “regulate and except” the jurisdiction of at least the lower courts, as I advocate in my book. All lower courts should be barred from adjudicating cases overturning state election laws. Those cases should be left to state courts, which are usually elected by the people of the state.

3. Pass resolutions explicitly defining the scope of the Voting Rights Act and prevent courts from using past erroneous precedent to apply anti-discrimination laws against universal voter integrity measures that are manifestly not discriminatory. The federal judiciary, especially lower courts created by Congress, don’t have a monopoly on constitutional interpretation, much less statutory interpretation. The House recently passed a similar bill with regard to regulatory litigation, barring the courts from using “the Chevron Doctrine” to allow executive agencies to bastardize environmental statutes in a way that was never intended by the legislative branch.

Supreme law Hierarchy

Most importantly, as we commence a national debate over the next SCOTUS nominee, conservatives inside and outside of Congress must utilize this focus to educate the public on the true role of the court system. As I’ve written before, even those founders who believed federal courts have the power of judicial review, understood that they are not the sole and final arbiter of every political issue. Judicial review does not equal judicial supremacy. The judiciary’s power is certainly not greater than the power of Congress, which in itself fully created the institution of the federal judiciary and has the power to regulate the court’s jurisdiction.

Many Republicans are giddy about assuming full control over the federal government and 33 state legislatures. But if nothing is done to reverse the false deference to judicial supremacy, the election will be rendered moot and the Constitution will continue to be tarnished. (For more from the author of “SCOTUS Declines to Protect Texas from Tyrannical Lower Court Injunction on Voter ID Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Says He Will ‘Send in the Feds’ If Chicago Doesn’t Reduce Homicides

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump tweeted Tuesday night that if Chicago is unable to reduce its homicide figures, he will send in “the Feds” to help reduce the city’s murder rate.

“If Chicago doesn’t fix the horrible `carnage’ going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!” Trump posted.

Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson responded late Tuesday, saying: “The Chicago Police Department is more than willing to work with the federal government to build on our partnerships with DOJ, FBI, DEA and ATF and boost federal prosecution rates for gun crimes in Chicago.”

Trump did not offer specifics about how the federal government could help.

The White House website says, “Our country needs more law enforcement, more community engagement and more effective policing.” (Read more from “Trump Says He Will ‘Send in the Feds’ If Chicago Doesn’t Reduce Homicides” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Nominated for a Cabinet Position? Liberal Senators Just Want to Know Your Position on ‘Climate Change’

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Left’s obsession with climate change has been on full display in the confirmation hearings of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees. They seem to believe the issue is more important than any other foreign, domestic, or security concern. Indeed, in their minds, it seems to trump even the need for the fair and objective administration of justice.

From Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. (C, 78%) to Rex Tillerson, Trump’s nominees have been grilled about what remains a vigorously disputed theory: human-induced, catastrophic climate change. Despite claims to the contrary, no consensus exists that man-made emissions are the primary driver of global warming, or, more importantly, that catastrophic global warming is occurring, is accelerating, or is dangerous.

In fact, climatologists hold widely divergent views on the causes of climate change, the rate at which change is occurring, which sets of climate and temperature data to use, and the accuracy of climate models projecting decades and centuries into the future. But you would never know this from the questions lobbed by the Left at the hearings.

Take former Kansas congressman and newly confirmed CIA Director Mike Pompeo. The CIA’s job is to gather and analyze information about foreign threats to U.S. national security, from terrorist organizations like ISIS to belligerent countries like Russia and North Korea. Getting actionable information that can prevent the next 9/11 or the next invasion of a friendly country or ally is — or at least should be — job number one for the CIA.

But not according to Kamala Harris, D-Calif. (A, 0%), the new senator from California and the state’s former attorney general. She cross-examined Pompeo about his views on climate change and global warming, quizzing him on whether he accepts the supposed scientific “consensus” on the issue.

Thankfully, Pompeo understands — even if Harris doesn’t — that the correctness of this theory has absolutely no bearing on the CIA’s mission.

Pompeo told Harris that, as the prospective director of the CIA, he sees no need “to get into the details of climate debate and science.” Rather, he noted, his role would be “to work alongside warriors keeping Americans safe.”

Unfortunately, that answer only led Harris to question Pompeo’s ability to accept evidence and the consensus of the intelligence community — as if the intelligence community should be wasting its time sifting through the competing data and claims regarding global warming.

The senator’s questioning was as predictable as it was off-base. After all, while serving as attorney general of California she joined a coalition of state AGs bent on using state securities fraud and RICO laws to prosecute anyone who disputed the supposed consensus on global warming. In other words, she tried to abuse her power to criminalize scientific debate and silence dissent.

Climate crusaders similarly tried to sidetrack the hearings for Rex Tillerson, the nominee for secretary of state. America faces serious threats from around the globe, and relations with what used to be some of our closest allies — like the United Kingdom and Israel — are badly frayed. Yet Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. (F, 12%) asked Tillerson about climate change and whether we need to increase our efforts to combat it.

Tillerson rightly said that scientific evidence linking climate change with a supposed increase in natural disasters is “inconclusive.” But this sparked only more climate-related questions from Sens. Tom Udall, D-N.M. (F, 4%), Ed Markey, D-Mass. (F, 17%), Ben Cardin, D-Md. (F, 2%), and Tim Kaine, D-Va. (F, 0%). Apparently, they must believe that the secretary of state’s position on a scientific theory is more important than his views on how to deal with real foreign relations problems.

Trump’s the attorney general nominee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. (C, 78%), also received questions about climate change. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. (F, 6%) told Sessions that as attorney general he would be in a position to bring actions that relate to carbon emissions and climate change. At that point Whitehouse asked: Would he rely on “real facts and real science?” Whitehouse was pushing Sessions to agree that he would prosecute climate change “skeptics.” He tried the same thing earlier with Attorney General Loretta Lynch. During a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting last March, Whitehouse urged Lynch to prosecute those “who pretend the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled,” particularly those in the “fossil fuel industry” who, Whitehouse asserted, have constructed a “climate denial apparatus.”

Sessions, like Tillerson, diplomatically recognized the plausibility of climate change, yet pointed out that “honesty and integrity in that process is required.” Hopefully, this means that he will reverse the actions of Loretta Lynch who told Whitehouse that she had referred the issue to “the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action.” The Justice Department should not be investigating or prosecuting those who hold disfavored views regarding scientific controversies.

Finally, the Democrats found nominees where questions about the environment actually make sense: Scott Pruitt, the nominee for the Environmental Protection Agency, and Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont. (F, 33%) nominee for the Department of Interior.

Asked by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. (F, 17%) for his “personal opinion” on the issue of climate change, Pruitt responded — as any good lawyer should — that his “personal opinion is immaterial.” Similarly, Zinke acknowledged the “debate over the human role in climate change,” but called for an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy. Instead of bowing down to political correctness, Zinke and Pruitt took the more scientific approach of acknowledging the theory but questioning whether it has been definitively proven.

No one questions that we should continue studying climate change, whether it is actually occurring or not, and if so, what is causing it. But that needs to be done without theatrics, using rigorously appropriate scientific methods. There is no legitimate role in science for political influence or threats of prosecution for dissent.

Cabinet members in national security, economic, and other positions that do not have environmental policy as their primary (or even secondary) remit should be allowed to focus on their real jobs, rather than being side-tracked into dealing with preening politicians’ pet causes. Their focus should be on the threats that we face in terms of confronting stagnant growth, a ballooning debt, deteriorating social conditions, and increased crime in some of our inner cities, and the many enemies we face abroad including dangerous terrorist groups who are dedicated to our destruction. (For more from the author of “Nominated for a Cabinet Position? Liberal Senators Just Want to Know Your Position on ‘Climate Change'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

My Message and Prayer for the President

/0 Comments/in , /by

Early Inaugural morning, I was privileged to take part in a private church service with the incoming President and Vice-President and their families. Donald Trump had personally and graciously asked me to pray over him. It was not only my honor as a citizen, but is fully in keeping with Scripture’s command to pray and intercede “for kings and all who are in high positions.” (1 Timothy 2:1-3 NRSV)

I want to share with you the words God placed on our hearts to impart on our new leader.

Our Introduction

What a beautiful sight! (To President Trump) Do you mind standing?

What a beautiful family! … I honestly believe, I remember Eric saying to me the first time we met, “He’s a great father.” (To Eric) You said, “We’re going to win this thing!” Eric, you talked about winning it for us, for America, for the sake of freedom. Galatians 5:1 says, “It’s for freedom Christ set us free.” That freedom, true freedom, was purchased at a great price. It’s been protected at a great price. And it will continue to be with great leadership.

(To Donald Trump) The first time you and I talked, I shared with you something I thought was very helpful — and knowing you and watching you, sometimes you would wonder if there is any way possible. I said, “Let me talk with you about humility and meekness, with the emphasis on meekness. It’s not weakness.” I said, “It’s taking great power and submitting it with the kind of biblical direction that enables it to fulfill what its strength enables it to do.” I used two examples of meekness: Billy Graham and Ronald Reagan. I said, “These two men have submitted as deeply as any people I’ve had the opportunity to observe up close to the wisdom that enabled them to do great things that benefited all the people and extended the right for freedom.”

I said, “It’s like taking the power of a thoroughbred like Secretariat and yielding it to the wisdom and guidance of a 100-pound jockey.” I said, “Sir, the meekness that God has given you is as great as any I have ever witnessed — and ability to move and motivate people that is nothing short of a divine, supernatural enabling.” I said, “Sir, if you yield the gifts of God and the strength that He put in you, not for your purposes but for His kingdom purpose, you’ll win a triple crown. You’ll win an election and you’ll save the day, even the future of freedom, and restore the foundation and the walls essential to protect it.”

I have had the joy — and I want to thank you for this joy. I’ve never been treated in 55 years of public ministry with greater honor, respect, sincere appreciation and gratitude, and joining me seeking God in prayer. Sir, you have been amazing to be with. To God be the glory! It is an answer to a lot of the prayers of the people here and around the world. You are in fact an answer to prayer. Seventy-three years I’ve been in this life, and the greatest Cabinet I’ve ever seen is seated right here. I think you have been designed and gifted by God for this moment. If you, too, together will submit to the wisdom God freely offers, it is going to be an amazing journey. I compliment your family. I want to say this to you, the family: Will all of you join me praying from now on that we will someday hear it said in the church, the family of God, what a beautiful family, what an awesome family!

Our Prayer

Father, I pray for President-elect Donald Trump.

Thank you for his beautiful family, for a beautiful First Lady. Thank you for the wisdom that was manifested when he began with the choice of Gov. Mike Pence, now our Vice President-elect, and his wife and family, and this Cabinet is amazing.

Father, I ask you to pour out your wisdom. Let it flow like a river, and let everyone around him receive that wisdom and encourage him. We stand against the forces of distraction, dissension and division that would in any way keep people from hearing the transforming truth of your Word. God, we’re asking you to pour out Your love, Your compassion, and give us Your courage, Your boldness, that we may fulfill Your will on this earth.

We believe, dear God, that the stage is set for the next great spiritual awakening, and I believe with all my heart it is absolutely essential. I want to thank you from the depth of my heart for giving us a leader who is fearless, who is tireless, who is committed and who has so obviously, by his very manner and the way he treats people and expresses appreciation for them, and the way he has forgiven those who have been unkind, and even given them an opportunity to serve.

God, I want to thank you that we have seen the transformation of his own heart and mind in his actions. I pray, dear God, that those actions would continue to always speak louder than words.

God, pour out your love on our nation and pour out your love through our nation. We not only want you to bless America, but God, we want America to bless You by blessing the people around the world that You love so deeply.

Thank you for this moment.

I ask you to build a hedge of protection around the President and Vice President, their families, the Cabinet, our national leadership. And God, would you heal the division in our Congress, and Lord, would you heal the division that has been in Your church too long? And let us see this miracle awakening. And we will give you the glory, praise and thanksgiving, forever and ever.

Our Prayers Continue

Prayers for President Trump cannot end with his Inauguration. With celebrities publicly dreaming of “blowing up the White House,” former Clinton spokesmen quoting the assassin John Wilkes Booth’s “sic semper tyrannis,” and so much anger in the streets, prayers of protection for the President, his family and our nation must continue without ceasing.

On a more hopeful note, we must also continue to pray that those in the White House will listen to our Heavenly Father as they go about their daily business on our behalf.

As I told President Trump, Vice-President Pence and their cabinet Friday morning, “If you together will submit to the wisdom God freely offers, it is going to be an amazing journey.” (For more from the author of “My Message and Prayer for the President” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

US Energy Takes a Major Step Forward

/0 Comments/in , /by

For years, the Obama administration used its executive authority to obstruct two crucial energy infrastructure projects: the Dakota Access pipeline and the Keystone XL pipeline.

Today, the obstruction finally came to an end when President Donald Trump signed two executive orders. This action affirms our new president’s respect for the rule of law and his support for responsible infrastructure development, energy production, and job creation.

One of the executive orders directs all federal agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to expedite approval of the easement to complete construction of the Dakota Access pipeline project.

Another order invites the TransCanada Corp. to resubmit its application for the Keystone XL pipeline and directs the State Department to expedite its review.

Construction on the 1,172-mile Dakota Access pipeline was halted by the Obama Administration in September after its developers had met every legal requirement to complete the project.

Now more than 90 percent complete, the $3.7 billion private project will deliver as many as 570,000 barrels of oil a day from northwestern North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to connect to existing pipelines in Illinois.

President Barack Obama had stopped the approval of an easement to cross U.S. Army Corps of Engineers property across the Missouri River at Lake Oahe in Morton County.

The meddling by the Obama administration in trying to block this legally permitted project has encouraged civil disobedience, threatened the safety of local residents, and placed an onerous financial burden on local law enforcement—with no offer of federal reimbursement for these increasing costs.

Since last summer, protesters have illegally occupied federal land in Morton County near the pipeline construction site, damaging equipment, roads, bridges, livestock, and private property.

I have asked the Trump administration to pay for law enforcement costs near the protest site and provide federal police to protect construction workers. Legally permitted infrastructure projects must be allowed to proceed without threat of improper governmental interference.

This conflict deserves peaceful resolution, and I hope the extreme environmentalists leading the protest will not further endanger themselves, Morton County residents, construction workers, and law enforcement.

These pipelines hold the promise of new jobs and North American energy security. The Keystone XL pipeline also offers the opportunity to do business with Canada, our longtime ally and oldest trading partner.

With today’s action from the White House, U.S. energy has taken a great step forward. (For more from the author of “US Energy Takes a Major Step Forward” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

White House: Centrist GOP Senators’ Obamacare Plan at Odds with Trump’s Vision

/0 Comments/in , /by

The White House seemed less than enthusiastic about one Senate Republican plan that would allow states to keep Obamacare, stressing President Donald Trump’s opposition to mandates that drive down competition.

On Monday, four Republican senators released the text of the Patient Freedom Act of 2017 to replace the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. The bill calls for repealing the mandates but would allow states to choose to maintain the mandates, according to the bill’s summary.

The Daily Signal asked Tuesday if this legislation could fall short of Trump’s pledge during the campaign to repeal the law in its entirety.

“First and foremost, let’s get back to what his goal is: We are working with Congress, some of those conversations started last night, staff has been working on a plan to repeal and replace [Obamacare],” White House press secretary Sean Spicer told The Daily Signal during the press briefing. “His goal, first and foremost, is to make sure we give the American people a health care system that is affordable, more accessible, more doctors and more plans.”

With regards to states, Spicer focused on Trump’s opposition to mandates—which could still be in place under this particular GOP Senate proposal.

“How a state chooses to implement that — what I think right now is the idea that we’ve had these mandates requiring people to get things that has driven out competition and driven up costs, is not a health care system he is pleased with and wants to support the repeal of,” Spicer added.

Four senators who are considered centrist or liberal Republicans are the sponsors of the bill: Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, and Johnny Isakson of Georgia.

The bill summary says: “Option 1 allows the State to reinstate Title I of the ACA [Affordable Care Act], including its mandates and other requirements.”

In a Senate floor speech, Collins suggested states would opt against it:

Option one would allow a state to choose to continue operating insurance markets pursuant to all the rules of the Affordable Care Act … More appealing to many states, however, would be what we call the ‘better choice’ option in the Patient Freedom Act that would allow a state to waive many of the requirements of the Affordable Care Act except for vital consumer protections and still receive federal funding to help its residents purchase affordable health insurance.

(For more from the author of “White House: Centrist GOP Senators’ Obamacare Plan at Odds with Trump’s Vision” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.