The Courts Are Even Worse Than Obama Administration on Immigration, Sovereignty

Once again, the unelected federal courts are violating Congressional authority over the most important societal question: who is allowed to become a member of our society?

As we’ve explored in detail in recent months, throughout our history the courts have always stayed away from questions of immigration and citizenship, with the understanding that a sovereign nation has the right to determine who enters its society and on what conditions a person is admitted to that society. In a representative democracy, those decisions are made by the elected branch of government. Unfortunately, the modern judiciary thinks otherwise, and as I warn in Stolen Sovereignty, the courts will completely take over immigration if they are not stripped of their ill-gotten powers.

Last July, the 2nd Circuit engaged in the ultimate usurpation of power and “struck down” (as if they have the power to do so) a longstanding statute governing citizenship of children born outside the country to an American father out of wedlock. Under existing law in place since 1952, it is easier for an unwed citizen mother to transfer citizenship to her child born abroad than an unwed citizen father. The mother must have been residing in the U.S. for only one year at any time prior to birthing the child abroad. On the other hand, the unwed father (if the mother is a non-citizen) must have resided in the U.S. for 10 years, with at least five of those years occurring after the age of fourteen (for those children born between 1952 and 1986).

In this case, Luis Ramon Morales-Santana was born in the Dominican Republic to a Dominican mother and an unwed father (at the time of birth) who was a U.S. citizen. However, his U.S. citizen father only satisfied the lenient residency requirements of a would-be unwed mother, not the stringent requirement for an unwed father. Now, Morales-Santana probably could have gotten away with claiming his father was transgender thereby being treated like a U.S. citizen mother, but I digress.

Morales-Santana sued for citizenship asserting that the statute violates… you guessed it… the Equal Protection Clause because it treats unwed fathers differently than unwed mothers. He was going to be deported in 2000 after he was convicted of various felonies, but were he entitled to citizenship he would obviously be spared from deportation.

Last year, the 2nd Circuit actually sided with Santana and struck down the statute. Why do I bring this up now? This was such an egregious power grab that, ironically, even the Obama administration just filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, noting that this is an area of law solely reserved for Congress. Now, it would be nice for the administration to recognize this power when it comes to DACA and DAPA but it tells you something that the courts are to the left of the Obama administration as it relates to citizenship and immigration.

The reality is that the people’s representatives have the right to set any residency criteria for parents of children born abroad. Indeed, it wasn’t until 1934 that Congress made citizenship of children born abroad transferable through the mother altogether. It is through this statute that people like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) are deemed automatic citizens at birth.

The fact that the courts would extend equal protection to foreign nationals and the conditions for citizenship thereof should leave no question as to how the courts would rule on birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants born in America. It also shows how this idea of amnesty without citizenship, peddled by some Republicans as a compromise amnesty arrangement, is a farce. Undoubtedly, the courts will grant them “equal protection” in no time and mandate judicial amnesty.

Judicial amnesty is a growing problem. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case or upholds the decision from the 2nd Circuit, another criminal alien will be allowed to remain in this country against our national will.

This is just another example of why Congress must act now to strip the courts of their illegitimate power over immigration. If America is going to become a nation without borders and a magnet for criminals from around the world, shouldn’t that decision at least be decided by the elected branch of government? (For more from the author of “The Courts Are Even Worse Than Obama Administration on Immigration, Sovereignty” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Donald Trump Just Got What Could Be His Most Important Endorsement Yet

In what may be Donald Trump’s biggest endorsement so far in his race for the presidency, the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) has officially thrown its support to the Republican front-runner as the next president of the United States.

The announcement — which marks the first time the agency has endorsed a presidential candidate during the primary season — came in letter form and represents the will of its 17,000 border patrol members. Trump has promised to give more authority to the agents on the ground rather than allow bureaucrats and politicians to control the country’s border from Washington, D.C.

“Mr. Trump will take on special interests and embrace the ideas of rank-and-file Border Patrol agents rather than listening to the management yes-men who say whatever they are programmed to say. This is a refreshing change that we have not seen before – and may never see again,” wrote Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council.

The statement admitted the NBPC had maintained a long-standing tradition of not endorsing candidates while the primaries were still ongoing, but had decided to end that practice in favor of endorsing the candidate (Trump) they believed would more fully support the agency.

“The lives and security of the American people are at stake, and the National Border Patrol Council will not sit on the sidelines,” Judd wrote on behalf of the NBPC.

Directly criticizing President Barack Obama, Judd proclaimed, “America has already tried a young, articulate freshman senator who never created a job as an attorney and under whose watch criminal cartels have been given the freest border reign ever known.” (Read more from “Donald Trump Just Got What Could Be His Most Important Endorsement Yet” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

THE NOOSE TIGHTENS: Second Judge Grants Discovery in Hillary’s Ever-Expanding Email Scandal

There have been some interesting developments in the Hillary Clinton e-mail saga over the past two weeks.

In response to an FOIA request, conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch obtained documents which seem to show that Clinton was well aware her BlackBerry wasn’t secure from the very beginning of her tenure as the nation’s top diplomat. Correspondence between Senior Coordinator for Security Infrastructure Donald Reid, long-time Clinton aide Cheryl Mills and the NSA suggests the former First Lady had become “addicted” to her BlackBerry and essentially refused to use the secure desktop computer provided to her by security officials.

The e-mails published by Judicial Watch show Clinton and Mills went to great lengths to get around the ban on BlackBerry devices in Mahogany Row and the language in the correspondence clearly proves that the Secretary knew conducting State business from her unsecure phone was outside of the guidelines prescribed by the NSA. “These documents show that Hillary Clinton knew her BlackBerry wasn’t secure,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said.

Further, one of the e-mails Mills sent to Clinton regarding the pair’s discussions with the NSA is dated February 13. That’s a problem because it seems to contradict statements Clinton made about when she began using her private e-mail server for work related correspondence.

Although, as we noted on Monday, there’s some ambiguity, there are legitimate questions around why she did not turn over that e-mail and others sent prior to March 18. One explanation seems to be that, again quoting Fitton, “she didn’t want Americans to know about her February 13, 2009, email that shows that she knew her Blackberry and email use was not secure.”

Now, in the latest developments from the never-ending Clinton e-mail saga, a second federal judge will allow Judicial Watch to seek sworn testimony from officials. “U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth entered an order Tuesday agreeing that Judicial Watch can pursue legal discovery — which often includes depositions of relevant individuals — as the group pursues legal claims that State did not respond completely to a FOIA request filed in May 2014 seeking records about talking points then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice used for TV appearances discussing the deadly attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi in September 2012,” Politico writes. “Lamberth is the second federal judge handling a Clinton email-related case to agree to discovery, which is unusual in FOIA litigation.”

As Reuters goes on to note, Judicial Watch has “filed several lawsuits, including one seeking records about the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.”

“Where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases,” Lamberth wrote in the order. “The government argues that this does not show a lack of good faith, but that is what remains to be seen, and the factual record must be developed appropriately for the Court to make that determination,” Lamberth wrote.

Although the ruling is, to quote Fitton again, “remarkable,” the “practical impact of could be limited” because, as Politico goes on to point out, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan – the first judge to give the go ahead for Judicial Watch to seek sworn testimony – has already received a discovery plan and will rule on it by the end of next month. In other words, Lamberth’s ruling is just icing on the proverbial cake.

“Discovery will allow us to get into the shifting explanations,” Fitton says.

Indeed. Or, as we put it on Monday:

“..the story keeps changing, and indeed that’s the whole problem. At this point it’s abundantly clear that Clinton would have been far better off telling the truth from the very beginning and the fact that incremental information continues to surface certainly seems to suggest that the former First Lady fully intends to admit only what someone else – in this case Judicial Watch – can prove.”

Well thanks to judges Sullivan and Lambreth, the group may be able to prove a bit more. (For more from the author of “THE NOOSE TIGHTENS: Second Judge Grants Discovery in Hillary’s Ever-Expanding Email Scandal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fox News Just Made One of the Biggest Announcements of Its 20-Year History

Presidential primaries, by nature, provide an opportunity for news outlets to gain a ratings boost. For the perennial cable news leader, however, the first three months of 2016 shattered all of its previous records.

Fox News Channel has consistently led rivals CNN and MSNBC in the ratings, though recent reports indicate the network was the most popular of all cable networks during the first quarter of the year. The trend held up, whether comparing prime-time ratings or all-day viewers.

Furthermore, the cable network maintained a lead over all others in the 25-54 age range — the demographic long seen as the most attractive to advertisers.

Though the record itself might be cause for celebration, many of the popular Fox News Channel programs also got some individual recognition. Of the top 10 cable news shows airing during the quarter, only one did not air on Fox News . . .

MSNBC and CNN have also seen marked increases in viewership throughout the primary season. In fact, both networks grew their audiences by a bigger percentage than Fox News Channel. While Fox added 30 percent to its viewership numbers, CNN and MSNBC increased theirs by 48 and 54 percent, respectively. It was not enough, however, to put a dent in the cable news powerhouse. (Read more from “Fox News Just Made One of the Biggest Announcements of Its 20-Year History” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lewandowski Prosecutor Outed as Hillary Supporter

The Florida prosecutor who brought battery charges against Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, supports Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president.

An article published by the Palm Beach Post on Nov. 17, 2015, has been circulating since Tuesday evening because it lists Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg as a member 150-member Florida Leadership Council, which was established by the Democratic Party to promote Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy.

The article states that Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg and Tax Collector Anne Gannon “are also part of Clinton’s Florida team.”

Mike Cernovich, writing Tuesday in the blog DangerAndPlay.com, cited the Palm Beach Post article in arguing the charges against Lewandowski were politically motivated. He contended “there was no assault,” because reporter Michelle Fields “was heading towards Trump and was brushed away due to security concerns” . . .

The official website for the Office of State Attorney for the 15th Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida notes Aronberg, elected state attorney for the 15th Judicial Circuit in November 2012, is a former assistant attorney general, a White House fellow in 2000 and a Florida state senator. (Read more from “Lewandowski Prosecutor Outed as Hillary Supporter” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Trump Has Finally Inspired Me to Leave Islam’ — Trump Fan Ditches Her Religion

A Reddit user wrote a lengthy post to “The_Donald” subreddit on Wednesday detailing how she has “been secretly watching Trump and his speeches for the last few months and agreeing with what he says about Islam.”

“Until yesterday, I had not once removed my Hajib in my life while outside,” the author, a 19-year-old girl whose parents are Muslim immigrants, explained. “I tried to do it once when I was 10 years old, and my parents grounded me for a week.”

The author states, in her view, the idea of “moderate muslims… is bulls***.”

“There are no ‘assimilated muslims.’ Throughout my life, I have been to three different mosques regularly,” she added. “Everyone there had some kind of animosity to America. Either they support jihadist actions outright or they refuse to condemn them, or they victim blame christians and the west. Every time theres a terrorist attack, all over the media there are reports of muslims who speak out against jihad or protest terrorists.” (Read more from “‘Trump Has Finally Inspired Me to Leave Islam’ — Trump Fan Ditches Her Religion” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

At Least 180K Join GOP as Pennsylvania Primary Nears

When Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Donald Trump square off in Pennsylvania’s April 26 Republican presidential primary, they will find themselves competing for votes from a rapidly changing base.

At least 128,000 voters statewide have changed their registration since Jan. 1 to join the party. Nearly 85,000 of them had been Democrats; 42,000 were independents or third-party voters. The GOP has also racked up 55,468 more first-time registrants.

The changes reflect what experts are calling an unprecedented number of party switches before a primary election.

That raises questions: Are Democrats and other voters flocking to the GOP in support of one of its three candidates? Or could they be plotting to stuff the ballot boxes for a Republican they think their nominee can beat in November?

“I don’t think we can say there’s one reason here,” said G. Terry Madonna, the veteran pollster who directs the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College. “But in the Philadelphia suburbs, if people are switching, some of that would be strategic: Vote for Trump because he would be the weakest candidate against [Hillary] Clinton.” (Read more from “At Least 180K Join GOP as Pennsylvania Primary Nears” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fox News Guest Reveals Origin of Cruz Sex Scandal Story [+video]

Columnist and Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers threw cold water this weekend on speculation that Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump was the source for a National Equirer report accusing Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, of having multiple affairs.

When the story broke Friday, Cruz blamed Trump, who is friends with David Pecker, CEO of American Media, the company that publishes the Enquirer. Cruz has denied the allegations. Powers discussed the story’s origins over the weekend.

“The Daily Beast reported that it was shopped around by two — reporters by somebody who was a pro-Rubio person,” she said.

“I also happen to know that one of the people who was shopping the story around very aggressively was somebody who was completely anti-Trump, and was anti-Cruz also … but who was not a person who in anyway was supportive of Trump,” Powers added.

The Daily Beast had reported that, “A half-dozen GOP operatives and media figures tell that Cruz’s opponents have been pushing charges of adultery for at least six months now—and that allies of former GOP presidential hopeful Marco Rubio were involved in spreading the smears.” It reported that Breitbart News was shown some video, but declined to pursue the story on the grounds that the video was inconclusive . . .

“I knew nothing about it, I know nothing about it, ,” [Trump] said Monday on Fox and Friends. “I have no idea whether or not it’s true, but it’s likely he should try and blame me because he’s losing by a lot. I mean, I have many, many more delegates than him. I have millions of more votes than him in the primary. He’s losing by a lot, so he’s not going to blame Rubio, because Rubio’s out.” (Read more from “Fox News Guest Reveals Origin of Cruz Sex Scandal Story” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FBI Investigating Reports of 17 Men Chanting, Firing off Shots in California

The FBI on Tuesday continued to investigate an incident in which 17 men were detained for reportedly firing off hundreds of rounds in a remote part of Apple Valley.

San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputies and an FBI agent responded to the scene Sunday morning and detained the men – reportedly all of Middle Eastern descent – who were camping out in the Deep Creek Hot Springs area Sunday morning, authorities said.

A 911 caller reported hearing over 100 shots fired and seeing five to seven men wearing turbans and shooting “assault rifles, handguns, and shotguns,” according to a Sheriff’s Department statement…

Police scanner traffic posted online by the Victor Valley News Group described “a large group of subjects wearing turbans and chanting” at the scene.

“They were up all night chanting ‘Allah akbar’-type stuff,” an unidentified officer is heard saying on the audio recording. (Read more from “FBI Investigating Reports of 17 Men Chanting, Firing off Shots in California” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sens. Cruz, Lee Accuse Justice Department of Favoring Abortion Clinics Over Churches

Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah are accusing the Justice Department of pursuing “frivolous prosecutions” against the pro-life movement and having, according to the senators’ offices, “what appears to be an exceptionally heavy bias” in favor of abortion clinics over houses of worship in a letter sent to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch Tuesday.

The letter concerns the Justice Department’s enforcement of the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a law that prohibits any use or threat of force and physical obstruction outside abortion clinics and places of religious worship. The law, however, does not criminalize peaceful protests or other First Amendment-protected activities outside abortion facilities or places of worship.

In the letter, obtained by The Daily Signal, the Republican senators write:

The [Justice Department’s] brazen pursuit (and subsequent online promotion) of—at best—frivolous prosecutions in the abortion context, combined with its failure to list any prosecutions or enforcement activities in the religious worship context, gives the distinct impression of a warped and biased enforcement of FACE by the [Justice Department].

Cruz and Lee reference the Civil Rights Division’s web page, which cites “more than 15 FACE actions in more than a dozen states” that the Justice Department has filed. The website also notes “ongoing investigations in other states,” along with “several FACE cases and settlement agreements concerning abortion clinic workers or abortion facilities.”

“Interestingly, it does not list a single case concerning the freedom of religious exercise at houses of worship,” Cruz and Lee write.

To further investigate the alleged double standard, Cruz and Lee are demanding that Lynch hand over a broad range of documents pertaining to the FACE Act dating back to January 2009.

For example, the senators requested that the Justice Department “identify the number of matters the [Justice Department] has investigated, looked into, or reviewed concerning potential FACE enforcement” with regard to access to both abortion facilities and houses of worship.

They are also seeking information about whether or not the Justice Department coordinated or closely communicated with abortion facilities or houses of worship in any of its investigations. Another request, for example, states:

Identify by date, location, and name of organization, every discussion, conference, or meeting (whether by e-mail, text message, phone, video or in person) between the DOJ and any abortion clinic or facility, abortion provider, parent organization or affiliate, concerning FACE enforcement with regard to access to abortion facilities.

According to the FBI, the U.S. experienced a “dramatic escalation in the number of acts of violence and harassment directed towards reproductive health care providers and clinics” in the mid-1980s. Since the passage of the 1994 FACE Act, “the number of violent crimes committed against reproductive health care providers and facilities has dramatically decreased.”

Most recently, Robert Lewis Dear Jr. was charged for attacking the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic on Nov. 27, 2015. The attacks left a police officer and two civilians dead.

Hans von Spakovsky, a legal expert at The Heritage Foundation who co-authored a book that discussed cases involving the 1994 FACE Act, said he has “not seen any evidence that there are more problems with violence at abortion clinics than at churches.”

“Look at the church burnings that have occurred in the past two decades,” he said. “The idea that one’s not more important than the other, I think, is not correct. And second, a number of the cases [the Justice Department] has filed have been clearly frivolous and meritless cases.”

Last year, The Daily Signal reported on several black churches in the South that have been affected by serious fires.

In their letter, Cruz and Lee specifically ask Lynch to state whether or not the Justice Department investigated, or will investigate, “the blocking of the entrance to, and interference with the religious exercise of members of the Los Angeles, Calif. house of worship shown in this video, particularly beginning at the 5:08 mark.”

According to the Catholic News Agency, the video depicts “violent assaults from opponents protesting the passage of the ballot proposal [Proposition 8] which rescinded a California Supreme Court decision that imposed same-sex marriage on the state.” The protests reportedly occurred at Mormon temples and Catholic churches.

The senators requested that the Justice Department provide the expected information no later than April 11. (For more from the author of “Sens. Cruz, Lee Accuse Justice Department of Favoring Abortion Clinics Over Churches” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.