73 House Republicans Sign Letter Demanding Answers on Obama’s Bathroom Directive

/0 Comments/in , /by

The largest conservative congressional caucus is calling into question the legality of President Barack Obama’s transgender bathroom directive for schools.

Chairman Bill Flores, R-Texas, is encouraging Republican Study Committee members to sign on to a letter, pushing the Departments of Education and Justice to detail how, and on what authority, they plan to enforce the new guidelines.

“Americans are incensed by President Obama’s blatant executive overreach,” Flores said, citing the IRS controversy, Obamacare, and the Iranian nuclear agreement. “Now they are threatening school funding over an issue that should rightfully be left to the states. Their actions are politically motivated and Congress has every responsibility to challenge them.”

The effort is led by Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C., who authored the letter.

In the letter, which is addressed to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Education Secretary John King, lawmakers ask them to “explain why schools must disregard the privacy, ‘discomfort,’ and emotional strain imposed on other students during use of bathroom, showering, and changing facilities and overnight accommodations as these schools comply with this guidance.”

By Wednesday night, the letter, which will be sent Thursday, had attracted 73 signatures from GOP lawmakers. To date, it represents the most significant development from a Republican Congress that’s been reluctant to challenge Obama on the issue.

In a sweeping proclamation last Friday, the Obama administration instructed local schools to extend Title IX protections, which prohibit sex-based discrimination, to transgender students.

Walker told The Daily Signal that the RSC inquiry is designed to begin returning discretion over the issue to the municipal and state level.

Under the current guidelines, Walker described a situation where individual students, not parents and teachers, dictate rules “from one week to the next.”

“If a 17 year-old young man wants to go shower with the girls on the soccer team,” Walker said then under the new guidelines, “he’s allowed to do that because of his will or his gender fluidity for the week [he] can tell the teacher ‘this [is] what I’m feeling, this is where I’m at’ and she has no recourse to step in.”

How Will the Guidelines Be Enforced?

The Obama directive has been widely interpreted as suggesting schools must comply with the bathroom proposal or potentially lose federal funding.

The letter asks the administration to detail what actions the departments would take against “a teacher, school administrator, educator, school contractor, or person volunteering at a school who does not comply with this guidance.”

What Legal Authority Does the Administration Have to Change Rules?

While the bathroom directive caught Republicans off guard, The New York Times reports that the Obama administration had been working on the new guidelines for months.

Walker argues that any change to Title IX requires an act of Congress. “The whole starting place, the foundation of this [letter],” he told The Daily Signal, “is basically to remind [the Obama administration] that they don’t have the jurisdiction to begin this in the first place.”

The letter orders the departments to “delineate the statutory authority under which the ED and DOJ issued this guidance,” and to confirm whether or not they consider the directive as legally binding.

Will Conscience Rights Be Recognized and Accommodated?

The letter pushes the Obama administration to detail whether or not exceptions to the new rules will be afforded to individuals and school administrations.

“Detail whether the ED and DOJ will recognize or accommodate rights of conscience and privacy in an individual’s or institution’s non-compliance with this guidance,” the letter states.

The lawmakers asked the Education and Justice Departments to respond by May 23. (For more from the author of “73 House Republicans Sign Letter Demanding Answers on Obama’s Bathroom Directive” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

GENTLEMEN, START YOUR SHREDDERS! Schedule of Depositions Revealed in Clinton Email Scandal

/0 Comments/in , /by

Judicial Watch announced today that it has scheduled the depositions of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, as well as top State Department official Patrick Kennedy, and former State IT employee Bryan Pagliano regarding the creation and operation of Clinton’s non-government email system. The first witness, Lewis A. Lukens, will be deposed on Wednesday, May 18.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted “discovery” to Judicial Watch into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email system. The court noted that “based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary.” The discovery arises in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton. The lawsuit, which seeks records regarding the authorization for Abedin to engage in outside employment while employed by the Department of State, was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).

The Clinton email witnesses are scheduled to be deposed by Judicial Watch attorneys for as long as seven hours:

May 18 – Lewis A. Lukens, deputy assistant secretary of state and executive director of the State Department’s Executive Secretariat from 2008 to 2011, who emailed with Patrick Kennedy and Cheryl Mills about setting up a computer for Clinton to check her clintonemail.com email account.

May 27 – Cheryl D. Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff throughout her four years as secretary of state.

June 3 – Stephen D. Mull, executive secretary of the State Department from June 2009 to October 2012, who suggested that Clinton be issued a State Department BlackBerry, which would protect her identity and would also be subject to FOIA requests.

June 6 – Bryan Pagliano, State Department Schedule C employee who has been reported to have serviced and maintained the server that hosted the “clintonemail.com” system during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

June 8 – 30(b)(6) deposition(s) of the State Department regarding the processing of FOIA requests, including Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, for emails of Clinton and Abedin both during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and after.

June 28 – Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and a senior advisor to Clinton throughout her four years as secretary of state and also had an email account on clintonemail.com.

June 29 – Patrick F. Kennedy, undersecretary for management since 2007 and the secretary of state’s principal advisor on management issues, including technology and information services.

In a separate FOIA lawsuit concerning Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi terrorist attack, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ruled Judicial Watch can conduct discovery into the email practices of Clinton and her top aides. Judge Lamberth ordered Judicial Watch to follow up with his court once Judge Sullivan issued his discovery order:

When Judge Sullivan issues a discovery order, the plaintiff shall — within ten days thereafter–file its specific proposed order detailing what additional proposed discovery, tailored to this case, it seeks to have this Court order. Defendant shall respond ten days after plaintiff’s submission.

Judicial Watch filed its discovery plan yesterday with Judge Lamberth.

“This court-order testimony could finally reveal new truths about how Hillary Clinton and the Obama State Department subverted the Freedom of the Information Act,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. (For more from the author of “GENTLEMEN, START YOUR SHREDDERS! Schedule of Depositions Revealed in Clinton Email Scandal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senate Approves First Openly Gay Army Secretary

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Senate approved Eric Fanning to lead the Army on Tuesday, giving the military branch its first openly gay secretary.

The Senate confirmed Fanning by unanimous consent after his nomination had been held in limbo for months because of a fight over the Guantánamo Bay detention center.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) said Tuesday that he had dropped his hold on Fanning’s nomination because the “clock has run out” for the president to move Guantánamo Bay detainees into the United States . . .

Fanning was previously the acting secretary and undersecretary of the Air Force. The Senate Armed Services Committee, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), approved Fanning’s nomination in March, and Roberts blocked McCain from bringing up Fanning’s nomination last month.

McCain thanked Roberts for lifting his hold and praised his work on the Senate’s National Defense Authorization Act, which largely holds the line on current Guantanamo Bay restrictions. (Read more from “Senate Approves First Openly Gay Army Secretary” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

U.S. Judge Strikes Down D.C. Concealed-Carry Gun Law as Probably Unconstitutional

/0 Comments/in , /by

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is probably unconstitutional, ordering D.C. police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm on the streets of the nation’s capital.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon found that the law violates the “core right of self-defense” granted in the Second Amendment, setting aside arguments from District officials that the regulation is needed to prevent crime and protect the public.

“The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” Leon wrote in a 46-page opinion, quoting a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision in 2008 in another District case that established a constitutional right to keep firearms inside one’s home . . .

Leon’s opinion reignited a running debate over the Second Amendment in the District and its courts; three different judges have come to different conclusions about the law, and gun rights advocates have made the city a main front in battles over gun-control measures. (Read more from “U.S. Judge Strikes Down D.C. Concealed-Carry Gun Law as Probably Unconstitutional” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

6 Facts Highlight Why We Need to Rebuild Our Military

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. military seems to be breaking. Senior military leaders have made dire statements before Congress, and story after story is revealing the potentially deadly challenges facing our men and women in uniform.

As Congress considers the annual defense authorization bill, here are six clear, real-world examples of why Congress needs to use the defense bill to start rebuilding the U.S. military.

1. The Marine Corps is pulling parts off of museum planes to keep their F-18s flying. Even with that drastic action, only about 30 percent of their F-18s are ready to fly. Not only that, but instead of getting 25 or 30 hours a month in the cockpit, Marine Corps pilots are getting as little as four hours per month of flying time.

2. Only one-third of Army brigades are ready for combat. The Army has now fallen to the smallest level since before World War II, while the top Army general says that the Army would face “high military risk” if it were to fight a serious war.

3. The Air Force is cannibalizing parts from some F-16’s to keep other F-16’s flying and is pulling parts off museum planes to keep their B-1 bombers flying. And half of Air Force squadrons are not prepared for serious combat.

4. The Navy keeps extending deployments of its ships, but still doesn’t have enough to meet demand. While the Navy needs about 350 ships, today it only has 273.

5. Serious crashes of Marine Corps planes and helicopters are nearly double the 10-year average.

6. The Air Force’s B-52 bombers are an average of 53 years old. Most Americans would not want to drive across the country in a 53-year-old car, let alone go to combat in a 53-year-old airplane.

These six facts show the consequences of cutting the national defense budget by 25 percent over the last five years.

At the same time, threats are growing. Russia has invaded Ukraine and threatens more. China is building illegal islands. Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon and North Korea already has one. And we also face the real threat of terrorism and the growing threat of cyberattacks.

The bottom line is that Congress needs to start rebuilding the U.S. military. We can’t let this go much further. (For more from the author of “6 Facts Highlight Why We Need to Rebuild Our Military” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Family Members of 9/11 Victims May Finally Be Able to Seek Justice

/0 Comments/in , /by

The possibility of families of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks being allowed to sue the Saudi Arabian government may become reality.

Fox News reported Tuesday that legislation making the lawsuits possible has been approved by the Senate.

The Obama administration is threatening to veto the proposed bill.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act was approved by senators on both sides of the aisle.

Senators John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., are urging the House to approve the bill.

Should the bill be passed, the government of Saudi Arabia says it will respond by extracting billions of dollars from the U.S economy.

Cornyn says the legislation will not damage the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. “It’s up to the House.” he said.

The bill, if passed, will allow family members of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government in U.S. court for any part they played in the attacks. Terrorists launched attacks in Washington, D.C, New York and Pennsylvania, killing thousands.

A statement from a group of family members of the victims said the bill, “reaffirms the commonsense principle that no person, entity or government enjoys blanket immunity from legal responsibility for participation in a terrorist attack that takes lives or causes injury inside the United States of America.”

Although both sides of the Senate have approved the legislation, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest has said, “It’s difficult to imagine the president signing this legislation.”

He went on to say the legislation would have “unwanted consequences” and it would “change longstanding international law regarding sovereign immunity and the president continues to harbor serious concerns this legislation would make the U.S. vulnerable in other court systems around the world.”

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., voiced concerns that passing the bill would alienate Saudi Arabia, while undermining an already strained relationship between the U.S. and its ally in the Middle East. (For more from the author of “Family Members of 9/11 Victims May Finally Be Able to Seek Justice” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Military Judge Makes Key Decision in Bowe Bergdahl Case

/0 Comments/in , /by

Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will have to wait until February to learn the outcome of his court-martial proceedings.

Emery Delesio of the Associated Press wrote, “A military judge decided Tuesday to delay Bergdahl’s trial from August until February to provide time for resolving disputes over the defense team’s access to classified documents.”

CNN reported earlier this month that Bergdahl’s defense team had been denied access to nearly 300,000 classified documents and had only received 1 percent of the documents requested. The defense claims it needs the documents in order to prepare a proper defense of their client.

Bergdahl walked away from his post in 2009 and spent five years as a prisoner of the Taliban. Several members of Bergdahl’s company were killed in an effort to locate the soldier.

Later, the Obama administration was accused of breaking the law when it traded five GITMO detainees for Bergdahl in a highly controversial prisoner swap.

The Obama administration celebrated Bergdahl’s homecoming and he appeared to be hailed as a hero. As Western Journalism reported, several fellow soldiers broke their silence and told their side of the story, which painted Bergdahl as less of a hero and more as a traitor. The Army agreed and decided to court-martial Bergdahl on charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.

Bergdahl is on administrative duty while awaiting his court-martial proceedings, now set to take place next year. According to Sgt. Maj. Matt Howard, Bergdahl is doing “a lot of administrative work that needs to be done. Paperwork, moving stuff from place to place, things like that.” His safety is also being closely guarded as threats against his life are being taken seriously.

The judge in the case, Col. Jeffrey Nance, also granted the right of media organizations to hire a court stenographer to record the proceedings and told the prosecuting attorney they have one week to give reporters access to court documents.

The implications of Bergdahl’s court-martial being delayed means either Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump will presumably be the commander-in-chief at the time of his court-martial proceedings. The date change also, as a result, allows President Obama to exit office without any further discussions of Bergdahl’s controversial prisoner exchange, treatment he received after his release, and subsequent military decision to pursue court-martial. (For more from the author of “Military Judge Makes Key Decision in Bowe Bergdahl Case” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Koch-Backed Conservative Group Fights California AG’s Attempt to ‘Chill’ Speech

/0 Comments/in , /by

Though a federal judge recently ruled that a conservative nonprofit group doesn’t have to disclose its donor list to California’s Democratic attorney general, conservatives believe this case is just the latest in an ongoing fight related to political activity and free speech.

“This was a great victory for free speech for everyone in this country,” said Mark Holden, the general counsel for Koch Industries, and a board member of Americans for Prosperity, the group asked to disclose its donor list.

“This effort to chill our right to the First Amendment is critical to what the left’s whole agenda is,” Holden told The Daily Signal in an interview. “They talk about getting big money out of politics, but what they really mean is going after speech and activity they disagree with, made by groups they disagree with.”

On April 21, U.S. District Judge Manuel Real found that Americans for Prosperity, which was founded by Charles and David Koch, does not have to submit to Attorney General Kamala Harris the names and addresses of its donors who have spent more than $5,000.

In his ruling, Real wrote, “The attorney general’s requirement that AFP submit its Schedule B [donor list] chills the exercise of its donor’s First Amendment freedoms to speak anonymously and to engage in expressive association.”

But the legal fight is not over, because Harris intends to challenge the decision with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case centers around Harris’ aim to enforce a California state law that requires charities, such as Americans for Prosperity, to file a copy of their IRS tax return with the state, including a so-called Schedule B form that includes the names and addresses of donors who donated more than $5,000 during a year.

Since 2001, Americans for Prosperity has filed the tax form without including the donor list, and until 2010, the state had accepted the charity’s registration in California and listed the group as an active charity in compliance with the law.

In a March 2013 letter, however, Harris declared that American for Prosperity’s 2011 filing was incomplete because it did not include the donor list.

The Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit took that challenge to court in December 2014, arguing the California law requiring disclosure of the Schedule B form is unconstitutional.

Harris contends the state law does not infringe on free speech and helps protect the public from fraud and illegal business practices.

“We are disappointed in Judge Real’s ruling and intend to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,” said Kristin Ford, a spokeswoman for Harris, in an emailed statement to The Daily Signal. “The filing of the Schedule B is a long-standing requirement that has helped attorneys general for more than a decade protect taxpayers against fraud.”

In his order, Real said Harris had failed to prove that the state needs donor information to properly investigate charities active in California.

“It is clear that the attorney general’s purported Schedule B submission requirement demonstrably played no role in advancing the attorney general’s law enforcement goals for the past 10 years,” Real wrote.

The judge also said the Koch brothers and other donors faced a threat of harm because the state inadvertently disclosed donor lists nearly 1,800 times on a public website that contains charities’ registration forms.

Harris testified that she has implemented procedures to prevent donor information from being disclosed to the public.

While he is satisfied with the judge’s decision, Holden told The Daily Signal he is worried about what he calls one of the unintended consequences of the 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, where the justices ruled that corporations and unions can spend unlimited money on political actions that are done independent of a party or candidate.

Critics contend that Citizens United has increased the influence of money in politics, and that groups like Americans for Prosperity showcase the problem of non-transparent laws governing donor disclosure by nonprofits.

Holden, meanwhile, argues that liberal politicians and Democratic-minded groups are using the legal system to attack their political opponents.

As an example, he referred to a recent subpoena issued by Claude E. Walker, the U.S. Virgin Islands attorney general, demanding ExxonMobil Corp.’s communications with free-market think tanks including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and climate change-skeptic scientists.

Walker is part of a network of state attorneys general who are alleging that Exxon has misrepresented its products and activities contributing to climate change “in order to defraud the government and consumers.”

“The bottom line is, over the last six years we have seen a war on speech,” Holden said. “We are even seeing it on climate change, where we see the use of threats and force by law enforcement to silence groups they don’t agree with. This should not be a partisan issue. It’s just free speech. (For more from the author of “Koch-Backed Conservative Group Fights California AG’s Attempt to ‘Chill’ Speech” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Phoenix Artists Threatened with Jail Time If They Don’t Serve Gay Weddings

/0 Comments/in , /by

A lawsuit filed in Arizona claims a city ordinance forces local artists to use their talents to promote same-sex weddings and does not allow them to express freely their belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative, Christian legal organization, filed a pre-enforcement challenge to Phoenix’s city code May 12 for Breanna Koski and Joanna Duka, owners of Brush & Nib Studio based in Phoenix, Ariz.

Koski and Duka, who want to honor God through their art and business, specialize in hand painting, hand lettering, and calligraphy for events, like weddings.

Phoenix law “strips artists of their freedom to choose what to create and what to say in the marriage context,” the complaint against the city says. If Koski and Duke were to turn down creating art to celebrate a same-sex marriage, the city could fine them up to $2,500 for each day they violate the law and make them spend six months in jail, since their studio creates art for opposite-sex wedding ceremonies, according to the complaint.

“Artists shouldn’t be threatened with jail for disagreeing with the government,” Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a statement. He added:

The government must allow artists the freedom to make personal decisions about what art they will create and what art they won’t create. Just because an artist creates expression that communicates one viewpoint doesn’t mean she is required to express all viewpoints. It’s unjust, unnecessary, and unlawful to force an artist to create against her will and intimidate her into silence.

Alliance Defending Freedom also filed May 12, in the Maricopa County Superior Court, a motion of preliminary injunction on behalf of the artists. The accompanying motion says Phoenix city code forbids public accommodations from discriminating against a person based on sexual orientation and gender identity, among other factors. The preliminary injunction brief says:

These rules should not affect Brush & Nib since Brush & Nib decides what art it will create based on the art’s message, not the requester’s personal characteristics.

But Phoenix’s interpretation of [the city code] puts Brush & Nib in the crosshairs. Phoenix construes [the city code’s] ban on sexual orientation discrimination to require public accommodations to provide any service to same-sex couples that they would also provide to opposite-sex couples, regardless whether those services are expressive in nature or not.

A spokesperson for the city of Phoenix told The Daily Signal that the city had not yet been served as of Monday morning, so she cannot comment until they are.

“Artists don’t surrender their freedom of speech and freedom from coercion when they choose to make a living with their art,” Jonathan Scruggs, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a statement. “Government can’t censor artists or demand that they create art that violates their deepest convictions.” (For more from the author of “Phoenix Artists Threatened with Jail Time If They Don’t Serve Gay Weddings” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Inside the GOP Effort to Draft an Independent Candidate to Derail Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

A band of exasperated Republicans — including 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney, a handful of veteran consultants and members of the conservative intelligentsia — is actively plotting to draft an independent presidential candidate who could keep Donald Trump from the White House.

These GOP figures are commissioning private polling, lining up major funding sources and courting potential contenders, according to interviews with more than a dozen Republicans involved in the discussions. The effort has been sporadic all spring but has intensified significantly in the 10 days since Trump effectively locked up the Republican nomination.

Those involved concede that an independent campaign at this late stage is probably futile, and they think they have only a couple of weeks to launch a credible bid. But these Republicans — including commentators William Kristol and Erick Erickson and strategists Mike Murphy, Stuart Stevens and Rick Wilson — are so repulsed by the prospect of Trump as commander in chief that they are desperate to take action.

(Listen to Erick Erickson discuss with Joe Miller Romney’s prospects back in 2012:)

Their top recruiting prospects are freshman Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), a conservative who has become one of Trump’s sharpest critics, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who withdrew from the Republican presidential race May 4. Romney is among those who have made personal overtures to both men in recent days, according to several people with knowledge of the former Massachusetts governor’s activities. (Read more from “Inside the GOP Effort to Draft an Independent Candidate to Derail Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.