Rinos for Hillary

A group of prominent Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) are rushing to endorse Hillary Clinton for President.

TIME reported on August 3, 2016 in a story titled “Here are 7 Republicans Voting for Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump,” the following:

During a week that has found Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump deeper embroiled in controversy, more disaffected Republicans have begun to voice their support for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Any Republican who is going to vote for Hillary Clinton is a RINO. Let’s make sure after these RINOs leave, they are not allowed back in the Republican Party.

Although Hillary will ruin the Supreme Court, take away Second Amendment rights and provide a de facto third term of President Barack Obama, these RINOs don’t care.

For Republicans who feel they can’t vote for Donald Trump, they can vote for Libertarian-lite candidate Gary Johnson or write somebody in, but don’t, under any circumstances vote for lyin’, corrupt Hillary this fall.

There are three different species of RINO that have decided to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton for president.

1. The Squishes

The squishes are the biggest species of the Republican politicos who are endorsing and proudly supporting a woman who lied to the families of the fallen in Benghazi and repeatedly lied on Fox News this past weekend about her email scandal.

Former advisor to Sen. John McCain’s, R-Ariz. (F, 34%) campaign for president in 2008 and Republican nominee for governor in 2010, Meg Whitman took to Facebook recently writing, “it is clear to me that Secretary Clinton’s temperament, global experience and commitment to America’s bedrock national values make her the far better choice in 2016 for President of the United States.” If there was any doubt, Meg Whitman confirmed that she is a member of the liberal elite sect within the GOP after writing that Hillary represents “America’s bedrock national values.”

Another person that falls into the squish category was former President George W. Bush Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson. Remember him? He was the guy who crafted the Wall Street Bailout in 2008 that saved jobs … on Wall Street … and caused politicians like Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. (F, 53%) to make bizarre statements like “Madam Speaker, this bill offends my principles, but I’m gonna vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles.” Paulson wrote in the Washington Post, “I’ll be voting for Hillary Clinton, with the hope that she can bring Americans together to do the things necessary to strengthen our economy, our environment and our place in the world.” Hank-Bailout-Paulson supports Hillary – should we really be surprised?

2. The Haters

This group includes angry, arrogant pundits like Mark Salter, former chief of staff to Sen. John McCain, who helped craft the 2008 failed campaign strategy that ushered in four years of President Obama.

Salter, a known hater of conservatives, wrote in Real Clear Politics that “whatever Hillary Clinton’s faults, she’s not ignorant or hateful or a nut. She acts like an adult, and understands the responsibilities of an American president.” Salter is motivated by pure hate and on separate occasions, has attacked strong conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) and Sen. Rand Paul. R-Ky. (A, 92%). It is a good bet that if you are a conservative or have every ridiculed John McCain in any way, Mark Salter hates you.

Bill Kristol was a long-time advocate for an independent candidate to run against Mr. Trump. However, he failed to recruit one and Kristol refused to man up and run himself. Although Kristol has yet to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton, I do believe that he will wait right up until the days before the election before to throw his hat into the ring.

3. The Nation-Builders

These are the so-called “national security conservatives” derisively referred to as “neo-cons.” All they care about is an expansionist foreign policy that will result in American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq forever. These individuals are only Republicans because they have allied themselves with the party most likely to invade another country. That used to be Republicans but might be the Democrats under the Iraq and Libyan War supporting Hillary Clinton. The nation-builders and interventionists are willing to shift support to any candidate who will espouse a reckless foreign policy that ignores the consequences of endless wars.

Politico reported on June 16, 2016, that one former Bush Administration official is on board with Hillary:

Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state under George W. Bush, says he will vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, in one of the most dramatic signs yet that Republican national security elites are rejecting their party’s presumptive nominee. Armitage, a retired Navy officer who also served as an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, is thought by Clinton aides to be the highest-ranking former GOP national security official to openly support Clinton over Trump.

Armitage is well known for exposing the identity of Valerie Plame, former Intelligence officer, because Plames’ husband questioned the justification for the Bush Administration to go to war in Iraq.

Brent Scowcroft who served under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford also endorsed Hillary. He was quoted in Politico saying that, “Secretary Clinton shares my belief that America must remain the world’s indispensable leader. She understands that our leadership and engagement beyond our borders makes the world, and therefore the United States, more secure and prosperous. She appreciates that it is essential to maintain our strong military advantage.”

These were merely the first herd (or is it crash) of RINOs to charge towards Hillary for President. There will be more. They will not be missed. (For more from the author of “Rinos for Hillary” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

States Can’t Sue Obama on Immigration Policy, but Guess Who Can

States don’t have standing to sue Obama for illegally colonizing their cities with Syrian refugees, but illegal immigrants and criminal aliens have standing to sue for public benefits. That is the state of play in the modern judicial system and the contemporary legal profession.

One of the most basic principles of the social compact theory, rooted in the Declaration of Independence, is that only the existing members of a civil society, through their duly elected representatives, can determine who may enter and become part of that society or under what conditions that individual may become a member. As James Madison wrote in 1835, “[I]n the case of naturalization a new member is added to the Social compact …by a majority of the governing body deriving its powers from a majority of the individual parties to the social compact.” This is why our Constitution vested Congress with plenary power over immigration policy and why the courts, before they became autocratic in recent years, conceded that they have no jurisdiction to second-guess the legislature on any immigration decision.

In Stolen Sovereignty, I warn that the unelected executive agencies and the courts are engaging in social transformation without representation by violating immigration statutes in order to achieve their de-civilization goals. As Conservative Review has observed throughout the past year, Obama is breaking statutes and abusing his power to use parole, refugee, asylum, and temporary protected status – and of course – executive amnesty – to bring in more immigrants against the consent of the people. Likewise, the courts are illegally overturning congressional immigration statutes and granting standing to illegal aliens and criminal immigrants to block deportations and even petition for affirmative rights, such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses, and gun rights.

Yet, at the same time, American citizens, states, law enforcement, and even ICE agents have been denied standing to sue in court when Obama is violating immigration statutes and the sovereignty of the states and the people. Thus, while the courts illegally venture out of their jurisdiction to overturn congressional sovereignty statutes – the most inviolate area of settled law – they refuse to actually grant standing to cases within their core purview, which includes striking down illegal executive actions that run contrary to existing law. Remember that Civics 101 class about courts applying the law instead of nullifying it?

As we’ve noted before, while the federal government controls the refugee process, they must engage in advance consultation with the states at every stage of the resettlement process. Yet, Obama’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), in conjunction with taxpayer-funded private organizations, are engaging in the ultimate social transformation without representation – jeopardizing the security, culture, and public services of localities – without even informing them of the resettlement after the fact.

Unfortunately, federal judges already blocked Texas from suing the Obama administration. Last Friday, U.S. Magistrate Judge John E. Ott denied the state of Alabama standing to sue the Administration for not engaging in advance consultation. In a 28-page memo, Ott wrote:

Nothing in the Refugee Act requires defendants to provide plaintiffs with information necessary to assess security and other potential risks posed by refugees, or information necessary to adequately plan and prepare for the arrival of refugees in the state, in regard to security and requests for social services and public assistance.

As I noted last year, statute absolutely requires ORR to take into account security and economic considerations and engage in advanced consultation with the states.

This is yet one more reason why the courts will always be a dead-end for conservatives and why simply “appointing better judges” will not help. Even good judges feel compelled to abide by existing precedent governing rules of standing, which is so one-sided against Americans that illegal aliens have more standing to fight immigration actions than taxpayers and states.

It’s time for Congress to step up to the plate. If Trump and Republicans actually wanted to turn around this pending electoral disaster and defeat Hillary Clinton, the nominee would immediately call for GOP leaders to reconvene for the summer and pass legislation empowering states to reject refugee resettlement. This is even more powerful than placing a national moratorium on resettlement; it allows the people and states to decide the future of their communities. These are the decisions the individual nation-states of the European Union never got to make before their societies were transformed into microcosms of the Middle East and now incur daily terror attacks – to the point that they are no longer newsworthy.

Any takers? (For more from the author of “States Can’t Sue Obama on Immigration Policy, but Guess Who Can” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Poll: Clinton Leads Trump by 10 Points, Both Seen as Flawed

Sixty-one percent of voters think Hillary Clinton is dishonest, yet she’s opened up a big lead over Donald Trump in the latest Fox News Poll.

Here’s why: majorities think Clinton is nevertheless qualified to be president, and has the temperament and knowledge to serve effectively. It’s the opposite for Trump: over half feel he is not qualified, and lacks the temperament or knowledge to lead the country. And his 62 percent dishonesty rating tops hers.

After the conventions, the Clinton-Kaine ticket leads the Trump-Pence ticket by 10 points (49-39 percent) in the race for the White House. Clinton’s advantage is outside the poll’s margin of error. A month ago, Clinton was up by six points (44-38 percent, June 26-28).

This is the first time the Fox News Poll included running mates. Trump announced his vice presidential pick of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence July 15. Clinton told supporters she’d picked Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine July 22.

Since last month, Clinton’s position is improved with most groups, as she gained ground among men, women, whites, Democrats, young voters, and seniors. (Read more from “Poll: Clinton Leads Trump by 10 Points, Both Seen as Flawed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

White House to Trump: Election Won’t Be ‘Rigged’

Donald Trump’s declaration that the general election could be “rigged” against him reeks of a candidate poised for defeat, the White House suggested Wednesday.

“I know this is the subject of debate at the end of the last presidential election when some supporters of Gov. [Mitt] Romney complained of skewed polling. So this is not a new claim. I would just note that it is often a claim made by people who don’t end up winning elections,” press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters at the daily briefing. “What I’ll just say in general is that the cornerstone of our democracy is the ability of eligible voters, citizens to cast a ballot and to have it counted and the more people participate in that system, the more people that participate in that process, then the stronger our democracy.”

Earnest went on to note that President Barack Obama has made a similar case in front of bipartisan audiences.

“You’ve seen the United States Department of Justice pursue cases in the court to ensure that the rights of eligible voters are protected when it comes to participating in elections and the president has actually worked in bipartisan fashion including signing up the lawyer for Gov. Romney’s campaign to offer up advice about what we can do to make it easier for eligible voters to participate in the process,” Earnest said. “And the reason for all of that is the president believes our democracy benefits when the American people are engaged in that debate and when as many eligible voters as possible cast ballots.” (Read more from “White House to Trump: Election Won’t Be ‘Rigged'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Conservative Icon Speaks out Against Paul Ryan

Republican nominee Donald Trump has recently come under fire for withholding an endorsement for current House Speaker Paul Ryan. Trump told The Washington Post Tuesday that, as far as endorsing Ryan, he was “not quite there yet.”

While many within the GOP criticized the move, conservative legend Phyllis Schlafly has spoken out with even stronger language than Trump against the speaker. In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, she called on all Americans to “get rid of him.”

Ryan’s opponent in the race, Paul Nehlen, is a businessman who has been rapidly catching up in the polls, as the Wisconsin primary closes in for next week.

The 91-year-old Schlafly had plenty of criticisms for the Speaker, primarily those that dealt with immigration, trade, and Ryan’s failure to represent the Republican electorate.

“Get rid of him! We don’t want anybody who believes in open borders,” she said. “Obviously Paul Ryan is not an ‘America first’ guy.”

Schlafly hopes for someone to replace Ryan and help defeat the “kingmakers” — that is, the political elite who have a donor class agenda. She has been particularly troubled by Ryan’s negative comments toward Trump.

Nehlen has said similar, saying previously that “Ryan’s repeated betrayals of the GOP nominee is beneath the dignity of the Speakers’ office and is morally disqualifying.” He predicted that if Ryan were to be re-elected, he would do his best to sabotage Trump even if he won the presidency.

In particular, Schlafly is against the philosophy of globalism. She has commended Trump on his “America First” motto, and explained that’s what the GOP really represents. In her interview with Breitbart, the conservative icon said she is hopeful of the future and believes Trump’s prowess and allegiance to the commonplace U.S. citizen will revive the Republican party. (For more from the author of “Conservative Icon Speaks out Against Paul Ryan” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clint Eastwood on Having to Choose Between Clinton or Trump

Famed Hollywood actor and director Clint Eastwood sat down with Esquire and opened up about this year’s presidential election, and a whole lot of other things, in a way that probably only Eastwood could.

Esquire’s Michael Haney described the 86-year-old’s work ethic, “Eastwood does not stop. Never has. Twenty years after most guys would be in full-on coast mode, Eastwood is still vital and vibrant, still pushing himself creatively. The guy is an inspiration, a reminder that we should always be evolving.”

Eastwood appeared to defend Donald Trump. The aging actor and director said, “What Trump is onto is he’s just saying what’s on his mind. And sometimes it’s not so good. And sometimes it’s … I mean, I can understand where he’s coming from, but I don’t always agree with it.”

Asked if Eastwood was endorsing Trump with his comments, he replied, “I haven’t endorsed anybody… He’s said a lot of dumb things. So have all of them. Both sides. But everybody — the press and everybody’s going, ‘Oh, well, that’s racist,’ and they’re making a big hoodoo out of it. Just f—ing get over it. It’s a sad time in history.”

Eastwood has strong feelings about outgoing President Obama’s leadership. Eastwood claimed Obama is an ineffective leader.

“He doesn’t go to work. He doesn’t go down to Congress and make a deal,” Eastwood said. “What the hell’s he doing sitting in the White House? If I were in that job, I’d get down there and make a deal. Sure, Congress are lazy bastards, but so what? You’re the top guy. You’re the president of the company. It’s your responsibility to make sure everybody does well. It’s the same with every company in this country, whether it’s a two-man company or a 200-man company…And that’s the p–sy generation — nobody wants to work.”

When asked about Hillary Clinton, Eastwood didn’t exactly warm up to the idea of her being in the White House.

“I mean, it’s a tough voice to listen to for four years,” he said. “It could be a tough one. If she’s just gonna follow what we’ve been doing, then I wouldn’t be for her.”

Eastwood eventually admitted he’d choose Trump over Clinton, and referenced the money she has in politics. “I’d have to go for Trump … you know, ’cause she’s declared that she’s gonna follow in Obama’s footsteps. There’s been just too much funny business on both sides of the aisle. She’s made a lot of dough out of being a politician. I gave up dough to be a politician. I’m sure that Ronald Reagan gave up dough to be a politician.” (For more from the author of “Clint Eastwood on Having to Choose Between Clinton or Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

White House Calls Secret $400 Million Payment as Iran Hostages Were Released Coincidence

The State Department joined the White House Wednesday in insisting it’s a mere coincidence that the U.S. transferred $400 million to Iran at the same time Iran released four Americans held captive.

The Wall Street Journal broke the story Tuesday night. “The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward.”

The Administration insists the money was simply the first payment on $1.7 billion to be returned to Iran as part as settlement of a decades-old dispute involving a failed pre-Revolution weapons deal. Back in 1979, the Shah had deposited $400 million into a Pentagon trust account to purchase U.S. fighter jets. The deal was cancelled after the Shah fell and the Islamist regime of Ayatollah Khomeini took over. Iran wanted not only the money back, but billions in interest. Over the years, the two nations continued to battle over the funds before an international tribunal in The Hague. Then came this year’s curiously timed settlement.

Negotiations over the dispute, the administration says, had no connection to the negotiations over the hostages. And as the White House has said repeatedly, the hostage negotiations had absolutely no link to the nuclear deal with Iran.

Yet the administration gave Iran $400 million the day four hostages were released. And, as the WSJ reports, they gave it to Iran in foreign currency cash (to avoid U.S. law), packed in wooden crates and loaded aboard an unmarked cargo plane. For kickers, the landmark nuclear deal was also formally implemented that weekend as well.

On January 17, President Obama said of the long-lingering haggle over the Pentagon deposit, “With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well.” He failed to mention the $400 million cash payout.

With the release of the WSJ bombshell, the administration is calling the timing coincidental. Said State Department spokesman John Kirby, “As we’ve made clear, the negotiations over the settlement of an outstanding claim … were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home.” Kirby also told Fox News the payment, unannounced and flown in on an unmarked plane, was “no secret.” When pressed for details about the flight by reporters at Wednesday’s White House briefing, press secretary Josh Earnest got testy, wondering “Why is that relevant?”

The Americans released as the money was shipped are Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati, Christian pastor Saeed Abedini and a fourth figure about whom much less is known, Nosratollah Khosravi-Roodsari.

“This was not ransom,” Kirby declared.

However, as the WSJ reports, “U.S. officials also acknowledge that Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange said they wanted the cash to show they had gained something tangible” and “Iranian press reports have quoted senior Iranian defense officials describing the cash as a ransom payment.”

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan isn’t buying the White House line, releasing a statement Wednesday morning:

If true, this report confirms our longstanding suspicion that the administration paid a ransom in exchange for Americans unjustly detained in Iran. It would mark another chapter in the ongoing saga of misleading the American people to sell this dangerous nuclear deal. Yet again, the public deserves an explanation of the lengths this administration went to in order to accommodate the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) was more blunt, directly accusing Obama of paying “a $1.7 billion ransom to the ayatollahs for U.S. hostages,” telling WSJ, “This break with longstanding U.S. policy put a price on the head of Americans, and has led Iran to continue its illegal seizures.” Indeed, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has arrested two more Iranian-Americans, along with dual-nationals from France, Canada and the United Kingdom in recent months.

News of the payout is already impacting the 2016 Presidential race.

Declaring the $400-million payment a “scandal,” GOP nominee Donald Trump blasted “incompetent” Hillary Clinton for initiating the nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Hillary Clinton has not yet reacted to news of the $400-million payout to Iran or Trump’s response. (For more from the author of “White House Calls Secret $400 Million Payment as Iran Hostages Were Released Coincidence” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

More Trump Turmoil, and More on Khan

Despite Donald Trump’s attempt at an “urgent pivot” away from his clash with the Khan family, his clash with the parents of the slain Muslim U.S. soldier continue to take a toll on the GOP nominee. Even Newt Gingrich, who many thought was an eyelash away from becoming Trump’s VP choice, told The Washington Post that Trump’s behavior this week is “unacceptable.”

It began last week at the Democratic National Convention, with a speech by Khizr Khan, father of a Muslim soldier killed in Iraq. Mr. Khan, a Pakistan-born Muslim, condemned Trump for his immigration stance, particularly his call to pause immigration from Muslim countries that are a hotbed for terrorism. At one moment in the speech, Khan asked Trump if he’d read the Constitution, offered Trump his copy, and insisted that the billionaire has “sacrificed nothing.”

Asked about the comments by George Stephanopoulos on ABC News’ This Week, Trump called their son a hero, but rather than leave it there, he suggested that Mr. Khan didn’t write the speech and perhaps Mrs. Khan couldn’t say anything because she was Muslim. That response — widely dubbed an “attack on a Gold Star family — has drawn a deluge of harsh criticism from military officials and media, pundits and politicians — even those from within the Republican Party. Sen. John McCain (AZ-R) said that Trump’s remarks “do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers or candidates.”

In separate statements, House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell disagreed with Trump’s stance on Muslim immigration and described the Khans’ son as “selfless” and “brave.”

And Rich Lowry of the conservative National Review wrote, “It’s not that grief validates a particular point of view, or someone who has suffered a terrible loss should be above criticism. But the grieving mother or father deserves an extra measure of respect. This isn’t just Politics 101, but Decency 101.”

With less restraint, left-leaning outlets such as The Atlantic are breathlessly declaring Trump’s campaign in complete collapse while Vanity Fair predicts mass defections amid allegations that Trump campaign staffers are “suicidal.” On Thursday a group of military veterans will team with the left-wing activist group Moveon.org for a Capitol Hill rally to call on GOP leaders to withdraw their endorsements for Trump over the Khan affair.

One of Trump’s sons, Eric Trump, defended his father on CBS’s This Morning, insisting the reaction to the Khan comments are “blown hugely out of proportion.” He said his father’s stance on Muslims is “not an anti-Muslim message, it’s anti-terror message,” and that the GOP nominee is concerned about ISIS “running rampant in the world.”

Khizr Khan, Immigration Attorney

Meanwhile, more information has emerged about Khizr Khan’s ties to the DNC and exactly what he does for a living. As Breitbart reported Tuesday, Mr. Khan has removed his law firm’s website from the Internet, a law firm specializing in immigration and the acquiring of immigration visas, among other services. So, while nothing should take away from the Khan’s status as a Gold Star family, it is fair to observe that it was an immigration lawyer standing at a political convention blasting a candidate’s contrary immigration policies.

Also, Mr. Khan’s previous law firm, Hogan & Hartson (now Hogan Lovells) is the same powerful D.C. law firm that has worked on the Clintons’ tax filings since 2004 and patented the computer software that handled Hillary Clinton’s private email server. From 2002 through 2010 it was also the professional home of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who did not prosecute Hillary Clinton over her failure to keep confidential emails and information secure.

Khan Coverage vs. Pat Smith Coverage
The wall-to-wall coverage of the Khans at the DNC Convention contrasts sharply with the lack of coverage given Pat Smith at the GOP Convention. Like the Khans she grieves. Smith’s son Sean was killed at Benghazi. Unlike the Khans, the candidate she opposes has a direct connection to the events that resulted in her son’s death, since Hillary was Secretary of State when the fatal embassy attack occurred.

Nonetheless, as Fox News reported, the Khans have received 40 times more coverage than Smith by mainstream media. And while Trump is roasted for his Sunday comments about the Khans, Clinton is receiving mostly a free pass for her comments the same day when she insisted once again that the grieving Smith misunderstood her when she spoke to families at the return ceremony after the Benghazi attack. According to Hillary, when she met with them at the ceremony she did not in fact blame the attacks on a YouTube video.

Unfortunately for Clinton, the Khan uproar brought Charles Woods, the father of Navy SEAL Ty Woods, back into the public eye. In appearances on CNN and Fox News, Mr. Woods read from his diary of that day at Joint Base Andrews, scribbled down shortly after meeting the Secretary of State.

“I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand,” he read, “And she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son.’”

When asked if he thought Trump should apologize to Khan, Woods said, “I know who should apologize, and that would be Hillary Clinton, for lying to the American families who lost their loved ones, as well as to the American public.” (For more from the author of “More Trump Turmoil, and More on Khan” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

SCOTUS Blocks Transgender Bathroom Order but Don’t Celebrate Yet

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a court order that allowed a transgendered boy to use the boy’s restroom in a Virginia high school. The decision comes amidst strong debate over whether or not self-proclaimed ‘transgendered’ individuals should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice.

The New York Times reports that the 5-3 vote, with Justice Stephen Breyer joining the conservatives on the court “as a courtesy,” blocked a court order by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit until such a time as the Supreme Court decides to hear the case itself.

The facts of the case are as follows:

The case in the Supreme Court concerns Gavin Grimm, who was born female but identifies as a male and will soon start his senior year at Gloucester High School in southeastern Virginia. For a time, school administrators allowed Mr. Grimm to use the boys’ bathroom, but the local school board adopted a policy that required students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms for their “corresponding biological genders.” The board added that “students with gender identity issues” would be allowed to use private bathrooms.

Mr. Grimm sued, and a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled the policy unlawful. A trial judge then ordered school officials to let Mr. Grimm use the boys’ bathroom.

The SCOTUS vote has overturned that decision from the Fourth Circuit.

Conservative Review Senior Editor Daniel Horowitz warned that conservatives should not be quick to take heart at the court’s decision. “While it is certainly welcome that the high court didn’t rule the other way, this is no reason to cheer the Judiciary,” Horowitz said.

“It’s bad enough there are those promoting gender bending as a matter of policy and even worse that the Fourth Circuit is mandating it as a matter of law. It would have been absolutely ludicrous for the court not to issue a stay on such a dramatic and irrevocably harmful social transformation pending the outcome of the case. It is therefore troubling that three Supreme Court justices and the Fourth Circuit wanted to even deny the stay. Either way, it’s important to remember that no federal court should ever have the authority to coerce a school district to allow opposite genders in separate-sex bathrooms, much less enshrine such a revolutionary idea into a 1972 statute or the 14th Amendment ratified in 1868.”

The fact that the court is even weighing in on whether or not individuals should be allowed to use the restroom of the opposite gender is a sign of the Left’s successful campaign in the culture war. And there’s no telling if the court will side with conservatives in the next case. (For more from the author of “SCOTUS Blocks Transgender Bathroom Order but Don’t Celebrate Yet” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Influence Could Continue After His Term Through His Political Appointees

Civil service laws have made it nearly impossible to remove government bureaucrats from their jobs. President Barack Obama has a chance to place many of his political appointments in these secure positions for life and make it difficult for a new president with a different agenda to enact reforms.

It’s a process commonly known as “burrowing,” in which political appointees move into career government status. Unlike political appointees, federal workers in the civil service system are difficult to fire, are hired through a merit system, and carry over throughout administrations, Republican or Democrat.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is looking into how many Obama political appointees will be transitioning to the civil service.

“For the federal government to regain the trust of the American people, we must be able to ensure that the federal hiring process is fair and open to everyone, not just the politically influential,” oversight committee member Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told The Daily Signal in an emailed statement.

“Unelected bureaucrats in Washington make decisions that impact everyday Americans, and even while we work for smaller government in Congress, we need to make sure that the federal employees here are the best and brightest, not the most well-connected.”

The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 was passed in order to stop raw political party appointments from securing federal government jobs. The law introduced the merit system into hiring practices and made numerous positions untouchable after they were filled. Civil service law has been updated several times since the Pendleton Act’s passage, but the basics remain the same.

Donald Devine, who served as the Ronald Reagan administration’s director of Office of Personnel Management, said he discouraged the transition when he served. He added, the conversion from political appointee to career civil service has as much to do with job security as pushing an agenda.

“Contrary to all the nonsense, you can’t get better benefits and the pay is very competitive,” Devine told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “I’m sure Obama would love to get his people in there. I would suspect this administration is probably encouraging this. … A lot of people who are in the career civil service system are political anyway. They vote about 60 to 70 percent Democrat.”

Devine, now a senior scholar at the free-market advocacy group Fund for American Studies, added there was a push in the 1980s among some Republicans to try to lock Reagan officials into the government, which Devine also opposed.

“During my time, some were saying, ‘Let’s get all the conservatives into the bureaucracy.’ I said if we do that, they won’t be conservatives anymore,” he said. “It’s a silly thing for Republicans to want to, but it makes sense that Democrats would work overtime to do this.”

Burrowing likely affects Republican administrations more than Democratic ones, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow for The Heritage Foundation.

“The reason is different political philosophies,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “Republicans generally don’t like big government and Democrats might think a government job is the best they’ve had and it gives them the chance to enact their progressive utopia.”

He noted that when he served in the George W. Bush Justice Department, a former political appointee of President Bill Clinton had transferred to the position of a civil service DOJ lawyer. The attorney’s legal briefs were “completely untrustworthy” and meant to undermine Bush administration policies.

“We had enormous problems with such individuals when I served in the Justice Department during the Bush administration,” he said. “They did everything they could to sabotage and interfere with the policy directives and priorities of the administration while protected by onerous civil service rules.”

However, Democrats raised significant concerns about conversions in 2008, the final year of the Bush administration, when about 26 conversions occurred.

Then-House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., inquired about burrowing by Bush political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security.

Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein, of California, and Charles Schumer, of New York, inquired about political appointees moving to civil service jobs at the Justice Department. Feinstein wrote a separate letter to the Defense Department, expressing concern that Bush political appointees conversions within the Office of Detainee Affairs.

Former Sen. Joe Lieberman, of Connecticut, requested the Bush White House Office of Personnel Management provide him with a full accounting of conversions from April through December of 2008.

A Congressional Research Service report from 2012 found that 158 presidential appointees from the Clinton administration and 135 Bush political appointees moved to civil service jobs.

The federal government has about 3,200 political appointees, out of millions of federal employees, according to The Washington Post. The personnel management office did not yet confirm that number. Generally, the burrowing employees are low-level political employees.

Office of Personnel Management press secretary Samuel Schumach said his office does not have a way to determine how many Obama political appointees have or will apply for civil service employment, but explained the process.

“Political appointees are free to apply for positions in the civil service as any other applicant. If an agency selects a current or former political appointee (in the last 5 years), the agency is required to seek Office of Personnel Management review and approval prior to appointing them,” Schumach said in a written statement to The Daily Signal.

“[The Office of Personnel Management] will review the hiring action to ensure it is free from political influence and meets merit system principles,” Schumach continued. “If we cannot conclude the action is free from political influence and meets merit system principles, we will deny the request to appoint the individual and may refer the matter to the Office of Special Council for further investigation.”

As the Obama administration is winding down, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has asked 23 executive branch agencies to account for how many political appointees are seeking career jobs with civil service protection.

“Such conversions, sometimes referred to as burrowing, run the risk of favoring political staff at the expense of more qualified career applicants,” Chaffetz’s July 20 letter warned.

“Conversions also create morale problems, in that qualified career applicants who lose out on promotions to applicants from the agency’s political staff can rightly wonder if the process was legitimate. The appointing officials must ensure each conversion of a political appointee to a career position results from a fair and open competition. Hiring decisions must be free from political interference, legitimate, and justified.”

The ranking member of the oversight committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., told The Washington Post the Chaffetz inquiry was “yet another unsurprising attack on federal workers.”

“The solution to dealing with a few bad employees is not to change civil service laws to undermine the due process rights of all federal employees but to find ways to help agencies and managers implement existing authorities more efficiently and effectively to discipline bad actors,” Cummings said.

New civil service reforms are needed, von Spakovsky said, to prevent agenda-driven employees from getting permanent civil service protections.

“New rules should be implemented that prevent any political appointee from getting a civil service job without a waiting period after they leave their political appointment—at least a year and perhaps even longer,” he said.

A Government Accountability Office report in 2010 found, “Conversions of political appointees to career positions must conform to merit system principles requiring that selection be determined solely on the basis of merit after fair and open competition.”

The accountability office found from May 1, 2005, to May 30, 2009, 143 former political appointees and congressional employees converted to civil service jobs. In most cases, the process was done properly, according to the report.

For seven of these conversions documentation indicates that agencies may not have adhered to merit system principles, followed proper procedures, or may have engaged in prohibited personnel practices or other improprieties. Some of the improper procedures included pre-selecting particular individuals for career positions and selecting former political appointees who appeared to have limited qualifications and/or experience relevant to the career positions. Of the seven conversions, five will be reviewed by [the Office of Personnel Management]; one involves an issue most appropriately reviewed by the agency’s ethics officer, and one does not warrant further action as both the official solely responsible for the conversion and the convertee are no longer with the agency.

(For more from the author of “Obama’s Influence Could Continue After His Term Through His Political Appointees” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.