Starbucks Gets Scalded in Backlash After CEO Criticizes Trump’s Travel Ban EO

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is harming shareholders by damaging the brand he globalized by criticizing President Trump’s executive order on Syrian refugees and travel bans.

Schultz wrote to Starbucks employees on Sunday, January 29, following Trump’s announcement on the previous Friday. The coffee chain CEO issued a broad-based attack against Trump.

The company’s share price has dropped lower (about four percent) following a disappointing earnings announcement and sank deeper (about 3.7 percent) following Schultz’s letter to employees that slammed Trump’s policies.

Schultz’s action serves as a warning to investors that they need to be aware of the CEO’s personal politics and whether the chief executive will create an unnecessary controversy by expressing those views.

Judging by the timing, Schultz let his progressive heart guide a hasty, emotional reaction, ignoring the predictable response by Trump supporters.

His letter said the American Dream is “being called into question” and claimed he was hearing from employees “that the civility and human rights we have all taken for granted for so long are under attack.”

Unleashing his frustration over the new president, Schultz discussed company actions challenging policies that are near and dear to Trump’s supporters.

Schultz expressed actions he is taking to support the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and mentioned Starbucks employees are “Dreamers.”

He touted the company’s history of hiring refugees and said Starbucks would be “doubling down” on this effort with “plans to hire 10,000 of them over five years in the 75 countries around the world where Starbucks does business.” As part of this effort in the U.S., he wants to employ refugees that support our armed forces.

Under the heading of “Building Bridges, Not Walls, With Mexico,” Schultz discussed the company’s investment in the country, adding the company would support Mexicans affected by trade and restrictions on immigration.

Finally, Schultz said eligible employees would have access to a company health care plan if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.

The response to Schultz’s letter was prompt and brutal on social media with posts calling for a boycott.

Facebook posts slammed Starbucks for its intention to hire refugees over American workers and U.S veterans.

Twitter rocked the company as well. Fortune reported #BoycottStarbucks was the top trending topic on Twitter the day after the Schultz letter.

Social media also distributed derogatory cartoons including a Starbucks store rebranded as “ShariaBucks” with a banner “Now Hiring: Muslim Refugees.”

Starbucks responded to the social media onslaught by emphasizing the company has a policy that encourages hiring veterans and active duty spouses.

Despite the company’s effort to respond to critics, its brand is damaged. The social media blitz and news stories labeled Starbucks as putting refugees before veterans.

Starbucks shareholders are paying the price because of Schultz’s inexcusable self-inflicted wound.

You don’t need to have a Ph.D. in political science to realize political passions are running extremely high, and no good can come from taking a position that conflicts with “America first.”

Like many on the Left, Schultz failed to recognize the mood of the country and the political land mines for not thinking about the consequences of his actions.

Schultz’s fumble exposes a management liability at progressive companies. While Starbucks touts diversity as a core value, the celebration of differences doesn’t apply to political thought. In many companies, conservatives are either absent or treated like social pariahs.

Starbucks is especially vulnerable to consumer backlash. First, Schultz previously used his company as his personal political soapbox. He has commented on race and told gun owners not to carry in their stores.

He also told a shareholder to sell his shares because the individual thought Starbucks’ support of a gay marriage referendum in Washington was bad for business.

Unlike Silicon Valley companies that expressed opposition to Trump’s executive order, Starbucks is a consumer product company with viable competing coffee alternatives on almost every corner.

Other progressive CEOs with vulnerable consumer brands have exercised restraint and not exposed their companies to backlash from Trump supporters.

After making a critical comment about Trump following the election, PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi — a Hillary Clinton supporter — quickly recovered. She joined the president’s group of business leaders, the Strategic and Policy Forum.

Similarly, Disney CEO Bob Iger, a long-time backer of Hillary Clinton, also joined Trump’s business group.

Nooyi and Iger’s decision to join the Trump Train is recognition that they are putting shareholders before their personal politics.

Starbucks shareholders wish Schultz would do the same. (For more from the author of “Starbucks Gets Scalded in Backlash After CEO Criticizes Trump’s Travel Ban EO” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Four Chaplains Who Went Down With the Ship

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Had the men obeyed the captain’s order, more would have survived that night.

On February 2, 1943, 902 servicemen, merchant seamen and civilian workers sailed on the United States Army Transport (USAT) Dorchester from New York on their way to Greenland. Most were 18 and 19-years-old. A Coast Guard cutter picked up sonar evidence of a German U-boat below. The captain ordered that the men sleep in their clothes and life jackets.

Many of the men chose to sleep without the life jackets or day clothes as ordered, perhaps because they were uncomfortable. At 12:55 a.m. on February 3, 1943, a U-boat torpedoed the Dorchester, knocking out its electrical system. In the chaos, men ran for their lives, some of them still in their underwear, leaving behind warm clothing in the near-freezing temperatures.

One man, while trying to retrieve his gloves, was stopped by one of the ship’s four chaplains, Rabbi Alexander Goode. “Never mind,” Rabbi Goode said, “I have two pairs.” Later, he realized that Rabbi Goode did not have another pair of gloves and that he’d decided to stay with the Dorchester as she sank.

The Chaplains On the Sinking Ship

The chaplains — Rabbi Goode, Methodist minister George Fox, Catholic priest John Washington, and Dutch Reformed pastor Clark Poling — were new to their jobs and were being taken to their assignment. They walked around the evening before the disaster, reminding men to sleep in their clothes and life jackets. They handed out crackers and comforted those who were seasick.

The four decided to hold a variety show to ease the tension. The men put on a musical review featuring the chaplains, all of whom could sing very well and loved to perform. Later, when most of the sailers were asleep, the torpedo hit.

The chaplains ran to the deck. One opened a storage locker on the ship’s deck and the four began distributing life jackets. They comforted the men on the ship, offered encouragement for the living and prayed for the dying. Survivors later reported hearing prayers in Hebrew, Latin and English.

When the life jackets ran out, the four gave their own jackets to the men. “It was the finest thing I have seen or hope to see this side of heaven,” said John Ladd, a survivor. After helping men into lifeboats, the chaplains linked arms, braced themselves against the listing deck and, as they sang hymns, went down with the ship.

One survivor, Grady Clark, said, “As I swam away from the ship, I looked back. The flares had lighted everything. The bow came up high and she slid under. The last thing I saw, the four chaplains were up there praying for the safety of the men. They had done everything they could. I did not see them again. They themselves did not have a chance without their life jackets.”

That cold, winter night 672 men perished by the torpedo and in the freezing water. The 230 survivors had been plucked out of the sea by two of the three Coast Guard cutters.

A Light in the World’s Darkness

Almost two years later, the four chaplains were posthumously awarded the Purple Heart and the Distinguished Service Cross for their selfless service and ultimate sacrifice that night.

President Harry S. Truman honored the chaplains on February 3, 1951, when he dedicated The Chapel of the Four Chaplains, now located in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Navy yard. Congress couldn’t give them the Medal of Honor because it could only be given for acts of heroism under fire. Their acts of heroism took place after the torpedo. Congress decided to bestow a special medal on the chaplains.

On January 18, 1961, President Eisenhower awarded them “The Four Chaplains Medal.” In 1988, Congress established February 3 as an annual “Four Chaplains Day.”

On that dark and cold night, in the middle of a horrifyingly tragic event, four chaplains of different faiths and denominations stood in unity as a model of John 15:13: Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

They showed love to the men on the Dorchester, and gave their lives so that others could live. May we be as bold if the moment comes when we are called to lay our lives down for others and show the love of Christ that will resonate for generations. (For more from the author of “The Four Chaplains Who Went Down With the Ship” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Leftist, Big Spending Lisa Murkowski Hypocritically Attacks Trump’s Border Wall Because of Deficit

/2 Comments/in , , /by

In an incredibly brazen attack on President Trump today, Alaska’s Senator Lisa Murkowski pledges his border wall will never get through Congress. Why? Because it will add to the deficit:

“If you’re going to spend that kind of money, you’re going to have to show me where you’re going to get that money,” Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski told CNN. “I don’t see how you can get a bill like that through [Congress] without offsets. I don’t see how that’s possible.”

Of course, Murkowski has never seen a debt ceiling increase she hasn’t embraced. For her, any problems with the budget have to do with why more money is not being spent, not less. Although she is the biggest Senate liberal on the RINO side, save Susan Collins, Murkowski is probably the biggest advocate for spending among Republicans. Her crony-capitalist handlers depend on the billions she directs their way and – in exchange – they manipulate Alaska’s elections for her.

Moreover, Murkowski may be way over her head on this one. To think she can actually run the numbers on the deficit – after failing the Alaska Bar exam five times – is a big question. Basic logical skills seem to elude her.

Unsurprisingly, big-spender Murkowski has never received a majority of Alaskan votes. Joe Miller’s two challenges, including one in which Murkowski was defeated in the primary, reflect that most Alaskans reject her style of politics. But, as long as her good friend and former campaign co-chair controls the corrupt voting system in Alaska, she will remain a fixture in the U.S. Senate.

If President Trump wants to do something about Lisa Murkowski, he should follow through on his commitment to review vote integrity issues in America, starting with Alaska’s dirty system. Otherwise, we can count on another six years of hypocrisy, corruption, and down-right stupidity from our senior senator.

Did Obama Just Hack President Trump’s Statement on Israel?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The final major policy fight of Obama’s presidency was his public dispute with Israel over their right to build homes in their biblical homeland. The country was rightly appalled that Obama and then-Secretary of State John Kerry chose to focus on a few thousand Jewish homes in the foothills of ancient Samaria at a time when Islamic mayhem is breaking out all over Western Civilization. In many respects, this parting shot from Obama epitomized the moral dyslexia of his entire presidency.

At the time, conservatives and even some intellectually honest liberals breathed a sigh of relief that a new a president would soon be welcomed — one who stopped condemning our ally as a way of apologizing to the Islamic world. We thought we could finally break away from the global elite’s maniacal obsession with the illogical and incoherent distraction of the two-state solution and focus on the root problem: Islamic supremacism.

Thus, naturally, this statement from the Trump White House was shocking:

The American desire for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians has remained unchanged for 50 years. While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal. As the President has expressed many times, he hopes to achieve peace throughout the Middle East region. The Trump administration has not taken an official position on settlement activity and looks forward to continuing discussions, including with Prime Minister Netanyahu when he visits with President Trump later this month.

At first I thought this was a hoax, or that it was drafted by an Obama holdover.

Some might suggest that at least Trump’s White House put some distance between this administration and his predecessor by recognizing some right for Jews to live in part of Judea and Samaria.

Really folks? Is this the soft bigotry of low expectations? Are we aiming for pale pastels, haggling over a few inches in an area virtually invisible on a map compared to the mass of land controlled by Islam? At a time when the entire premise of this two-state solution has been countermanded by reality, are we going to continue the same failed recognition of the PLO terrorists the way Clinton, Bush, and Obama did?

What exactly does it mean to “achieve peace” and why is the creation of a 23rd Arab state in our best interest? Why should we continue to invest our diplomatic capital into the foreign policy version of Obamacare? I spent the entire week robustly defending Trump’s immigration policy from a legal, political, historical, and philosophical perspective precisely because we don’t want to endanger our land with Islamic supremacism. Why is the Trump White House asking Israel to do something he wouldn’t want to do himself?

Moreover, this is the very stupidity that embodies the anger people felt against the political establishment and why they voted for Trump. While on the campaign trail, President Trump boldly decried the “stupid” politicians who are “pathetic losers” and perpetuate failed policies that are devoid of common sense. There is nothing that better fits this description than the globalist elite obsession with creating a PLO terror state west of the Jordan River; one which will become saturated with ISIS and Al Qaeda elements within days.

The two-state solution is the Obamacare of foreign policy. Much like Obamacare has locked up our economy and job market on the domestic front, the PLO nonsense has paralyzed our leverage in the Middle East and has consumed our foreign policy for 23 years. It is rooted in an apologetic concession to Islam instead of confronting the reality of Sharia-based Islam. Now, Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood know that any time they want to leverage Trump into making a concession, they will call upon Hamas and the PLO to ratchet up attacks on Israel and criticize the presence of Jews in Jewish territory. We have lost our leverage now that they know we “fear the Arab street” as it relates to moving the embassy and our ally building homes wherever they damn please.

What happened to the tough negotiator? Is this coming from his meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan today? A tough negotiator would tell Abdullah, “listen buddy, you create an Arab terror state on your western border and your country will fall to the Islamists within weeks. We won’t be there to save you.” Jordan would be just as adversely affected by such a dumb move as Israel.

Finally, there is a background here that is probably missed in the media. The reason Israel announced more construction in Samaria today is because, thanks to Israel’s crazy Supreme Court [Robert Bork wrote a lot about it during his lifetime], the Israeli government just dismantled an entire community of Jews in a town called Amona and sent their own army in to kick out their own families who have been living there for 20 years. This is something, to my knowledge, no other nation has done in history. So the building of more homes was somewhat of a domestic compromise for kicking those people out. For the Trump administration to then issue a statement on the same day and rip that wound wide open is appalling to the many religious Christians and Jews who so enthusiastically supported him on the premise that he wouldn’t follow such policies.

The bottom line is there was absolutely no reason to even focus on this issue at a time like this or issue any such statement. Silence in the face of Israel building homes would have been the refreshing change we all expected.

It’s disappointing that Trump is willing to get us sucked into the foreign policy cause célèbre of the very political establishment he claims to detest. On the one hand, he (rightfully) proclaims that our political leaders have been stupid to try to create democracy in the Middle East among existing Arab nations. Yet at the same time, he is willing to expend American capital creating a new Arab state that hates America, exports terrorism, destabilize the region, strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood, and will become a client-state of Iran?

We know you are better than this, Mr. President. Return to the inner voice of common sense and ignore the foreign policy elites. (For more from the author of “Did Obama Just Hack President Trump’s Statement on Israel?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Oops! Nancy Pelosi Accidentally Makes the Case for Trump’s Immigration Executive Order

/0 Comments/in , , /by

On Tuesday night, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. (F-10%) accidentally made a strong case for President Donald Trump’s executive order instructing the Department of Homeland Security to keep tabs on crime committed by illegal immigrants.

Laura Wilkerson, a Texas mothe whose son was “tortured,” “tied up like and animal,” and killed by an illegal alien, grilled Pelosi on her unabashed support of sanctuary cities:

“I am not a one-story mother. This happens every day because there are no laws enforcing the border,” Wilkerson said, as reported by the Washington Examiner. “How do you reconcile in your head about allowing people to disavow the law?”

Wilkerson continued:

“The second part of my question is this: if you need to go home tonight and line up your babies as you say, and your grandbabies, which one of them could you look in their eyes today, and tell them that they’re expendable for another foreign person to have a nicer life? Which one would you look to say, you, my child, are expendable for someone else to come over here and not follow the law.”

Pelosi, clearly bewildered by the mother’s impassioned testimony, offered a weak response, thanking Wilkerson for “channeling [her] energy to help prevent something like that from happening.” She then claimed that “our people [i.e. illegals] are not disobeying the law” in sanctuary cities.

“These are, law-abiding citizens, it enables them to, to be there without being reported to ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] in case of another crime that they might bear witness to,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi then went on to explain why Trump’s executive order makes so much sense:

“The point is – is that you do not turn law enforcement officers into immigration officers. That is really what the point is in the sanctuary city. So, it is not a question of getting sanctuary. Someone who … is guilty of a crime. They should be deported. Or sent to jail for what they do if you can catch them in time.”

Here’s the irony: Trump’s executive order doesn’t turn local law enforcement into immigration agents. It merely seeks to call attention to illegals who commit crimes that harm U.S. citizens. Like Pelosi claimed during the town hall, Trump believes that these individuals shouldn’t be allowed to remain in the country. And it’s safe to conclude that Wilkerson also agrees with this.

Thanks, Nancy Pelosi, for being one of the only Democrats in Congress to (albeit unknowingly) come out strongly against senseless sanctuary city provisions that harm citizens and protect criminals. (For more from the author of “Oops! Nancy Pelosi Accidentally Makes the Case for Trump’s Immigration Executive Order” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lying Lisa Murkowski Imperils Trump’s Pick for Secretary of Education

/1 Comment/in , , /by

President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Education, Betsy DeVos, on Wednesday became in danger of being voted down in her upcoming Senate confirmation.

The forecast became gloomy after Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — a pair of moderates — announced their opposition during separate speeches on the Senate floor.

“This is not a decision I make lightly,” Collins said. “I have a great deal of respect for Mrs. DeVos. I will not, can not vote to confirm her.”

After Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia announced his opposition to DeVos earlier Wednesday, it was expected that no Democrat would vote to confirm her.

A GOP megadonor from Michigan, DeVos is an advocate of charter schools and voucher programs — which members of both parties expressed concerns about. (Read more about Lying Lisa HERE)

Oh the Outrage! Liberal Racists Are Upset the Trump White House Is Honoring Black History Month

/0 Comments/in , , /by

February 1 marks the start of Black History Month, and Tuesday night, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer announced a series of sponsored events in celebration and recognition of the month.

The events kicked off with a special U.S. Postal Service dedication of a “Forever” stamp featuring Dorothy Height, a leader of the National Council of Negro Women and an architect of the August 1963 March on Washington. Spicer called Height “a true pioneer in the civil rights movement.”

As always, though, that wasn’t enough for the GOP-bashing, race-baiting Left.

Following the White House press briefing Tuesday, the Daily Intelligencer published a satirical piece titled, “Imagining the White House’s Black History Month Schedule.” The imaginary agenda included events like “Postal Service Unveils Its New Steve Harvey Stamp,” “‘So About That Harriet Tubman $20 Bill Rumor …’: A Conversation with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin,” “Keynote Address: ‘Blacks Can Be Racist, Too,’ by Charles Barkley,” “Stacey Dash Meet-and-Greet,” and “If You’re a Christian Black, You Have to Love Donald Trump or You Will Go To Hell.”

The satirical schedule concludes with President Trump announcing “his plan to build ships that will take you back to Africa if you are a Black and your Social Security number is nine digits” and an “announcement of March, May, August and November as White History Months.”

Trump-hating liberals on Twitter followed suit, making it clear that Trump’s White House will always be the sworn enemy of “progress.”

Of course, this is all in good fun … or is it? Underlying all of these jokes is the liberal narrative that Trump and anyone who doesn’t hate Trump is a white supremacist (or an Uncle Tom).

To liberals, Donald Trump will always be a racist, anti-gay xenophobe with a hidden agenda to expunge non-Republican “others” from the face of the Earth. (For more from the author of “Oh the Outrage! Liberal Racists Are Upset the Trump White House Is Honoring Black History Month” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

VIDEO: Just 14 Years Ago, Democrats Supported Cutting off Visas from Dangerous Countries

/0 Comments/in , , /by

When it comes to immigration and national security (and every other policy, for that matter), even many conservative Republicans can’t hold the ground plowed by liberal Democrats just 14 years ago.

Only a handful of Republicans are calling for a shutoff or cooldown of immigration and visas from the Middle East. Trump has made it a staple of his campaign and Sen. Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) has for a halt to the refugee program. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. (A, 92%) introduced a bill cutting off visas from countries overrun by terrorists. Yet, outside of a few House members, nobody else wants to pass even a standalone bill enacting this common sense imperative, let alone use the current budget bill to force the issue. All Republican leaders want to discuss is throwing more money at a problem rooted in willful blindness. Those bills will likely strengthen Muslim Brotherhood front groups responsible for training local law enforcement through block grant programs.

And what about Democrats? They don’t even want to discuss the issues of terrorism and insecure borders altogether.

However, it wasn’t always that way. In 2002, Congress passed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, which addressed many of the insecurities in our visa tracking system. The bill passed the House and Senate unanimously. The bill was originally sponsored by a group of bipartisan senators, including Ted Kennedy and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. (F, 0%):

SEC. 306. RESTRICTION ON ISSUANCE OF VISAS TO NONIMMIGRANTS FROM COUNTRIES THAT ARE STATE SPONSORS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.

(a) IN GENERAL- No nonimmigrant visa under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)) shall be issued to any alien from a country that is a state sponsor of international terrorism unless the Secretary of State determines, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that such alien does not pose a threat to the safety or national security of the United States. In making a determination under this subsection, the Secretary of State shall apply standards developed by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that are applicable to the nationals of such states.

The bill also established a program to monitor foreign students in the U.S. As part of that program, the Bush administration created the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), which required visa recipients from countries that represent a security risk to register with an ICE office and report regularly about their plans. Unfortunately, Obama’s DHS abolished the program in May 2011. Now, there are twice as many foreign students in the United States, including well over 150,000 from the very countries originally monitored by the Bush administration program.

(Talk about hypocrisy! Donald Trump should just televise this Bill Clinton speech from 1995 and then simply state, “I’m Donald Trump and I approve this message!”):

Ultimately, the 2002 bill had a lot of loopholes, which voided out its benefits in the long run and allowed Obama to erase what was left of the bill. But the fact that Democrats were even willing to sign onto a piece of legislation advertised as cutting off visas from some Middle Eastern countries demonstrates just how far their party has moved in almost 15 years. Sadly, Republicans have moved on with them.

Less than a generation later, after admitting nearly two million immigrants from the Middle East and hundreds of thousands more on non-immigrant visas, wouldn’t you expect an even greater sense of urgency from our political class? Wouldn’t our leaders be especially concerned about this influx of immigrants given how the jihadist threat has evolved from organized command-and-control attacks to individual jihadists carrying out their own attacks?

The fact that Congress passed that type of legislation in 2002 is just one more indication of how far our political class has regressed in their commitment to America’s security over the past 15 years. The pagan ideal of multiculturalism has crushed any modicum of common sense that remained among our leaders in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. (For more from the author of “Just 14 Years Ago, Democrats Supported Cutting off Visas from Dangerous Countries” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Separating Fact from Sickening Media Fiction on Trump’s Immigration Executive Order

/0 Comments/in , , /by

There is a lot of confusion swirling around the events that transpired this weekend as a result of Trump’s executive order on immigration. Make no mistake: every word of Trump’s executive order is in accordance with statute.

It’s important not to conflate political arguments with legal arguments, as many liberals and far too many “conservatives” on social media are doing. While the timing and coordination of implementing this order might have been poorly planned, we shouldn’t allow that to undermine the broader need to defend our sovereignty. For courts to violate years’ worth of precedent and steal our sovereignty should concern everyone.

What the order actually does

Among other things, the key provisions at the center of the existing controversy are as follows:

It shuts off the issuance of all new immigrant and non-immigrant visas for 90 days from the following seven volatile countries: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Any non-citizen from those seven countries (not “all” Muslim countries) is excluded from entering the country during this time-period (which usually means they won’t be able to board a direct flight to America). After 30 days, the secretary of state and secretary of homeland security must submit a report to completely revamp the vetting process going forward.

Within 60 days, countries will have to submit any information that the administration determines necessary, pursuant to the findings of this report, in order to adjudicate a visa application and ensure they are properly vetted. Any country that fails to submit this information will not be able to send foreign nationals to our country. All the while, the ban can be extended and expanded at any time.

In addition, the entire refugee resettlement program is suspended for four months pending a complete investigation of the program and a plan to restructure it and prioritize those who are truly in danger of religious persecution. After 120 days, the program may resume, but only for those countries Secretaries Kelly and Tillerson determine do not pose a threat. The program from Syria is completely suspended until the president personally gives the green light.

With regards to refugees and those who seek to enter from the seven countries temporarily excluded, the order gave discretion to the State Department and DHS to admit individuals on a case-by-case basis for important reasons, even during the temporary moratorium.

Statement of principles on the right of a country to exclude non-citizens

Those who want to immigrate: There is no affirmative right, constitutional or otherwise, to visit or settle in the United States. Period.

Based on the social contract, social compact, sovereignty, long-standing law of nation-states, governance by the consent of the governed, the plenary power of Congress over immigration, and 200 years of case law, our political branches of government have the power to exclude or invite any individual or classes people for any reason on a temporary or even permanent basis – without any involvement from the courts. Congress has already delegated its authority to the president to shut off any form of immigration at will at any time.

Immigrants already here: Those already admitted to this country with the consent of the citizenry have unalienable rights. They cannot be indefinitely detained. However, they can be deported for any reason if they are not citizens. In Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), which is still settled law, the court ruled that Congress has the same plenary power to deport aliens for any reason as it does to exclude them and that the statutory procedures and conditions for doing so are due process. Congress has established the process for deportation of those already here. However, as long as a legal permanent resident leaves the country he has no affirmative right to re-enter. Either way, they have absolutely no right to judicial review other than to ensure that statutes are properly followed.

But can Trump prevent those with green cards from re-entering the country?

The statute is clear as day. The Immigration and Nationality Act (§ 212(f)) gives the president plenary power to “by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants.” Clearly, the president has the authority to block any non-citizen – including refugees, green card holders, and foreign students – from entering the country. Also, for purposes of deportation, there is no difference between a green card holder or a holder of a non-immigrant visa. No foreign national who has not yet obtained citizenship has an affirmative right to re-enter the country.

Is this a ban on Muslim immigration?

No, it’s a moratorium on immigration or re-entries from seven individual countries and a temporary moratorium on refugees from all countries, subject to case-by-case exceptions.

Why didn’t Trump place restrictions on immigration/visas from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries?

That’s probably a good idea. But this was actually a judicious and cautious approach from Trump to start with low-hanging fruit. These seven countries are failed states or enemies of the U.S. (in the case of Iran). As such, there is absolutely no way to share data with the host countries and properly vet them. Somalia has been one of the biggest trouble spots. The other countries are marred in Islamic civil wars. Moreover, these are the countries that existing law targets for travel restrictions, and that Obama’s own DHS listed last year.

Why would Trump include green card holders in the ban on re-entry?

Both liberals and conservatives expressed concern over hundreds of individuals going over to fight for ISIS. We are already limited in how we can combat this growing threat among U.S. citizens. Given that it is completely legal to exclude non-citizens upon re-entry, Trump extended the ban to legal permanent residents as well.

If a Somali refugee is travelling back to Somalia (so much for credible fear of persecution!), government officials should have the ability to prevent that person from coming back when necessary. Obviously, there are some individuals from these seven countries who already have green cards and we might not want to exclude. That is why the order grants discretion to the State Department to issue case-by-case exemptions for “religious persecution, “or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship.” A CBP agent is always stationed at any international airport from which these individuals would board a direct flight to the United States (Paris and Dubai, for example). That individual would not allow anyone covered by this ban onto a U.S.-bound flight unless he grants them a hardship exemption.

Indeed, it appears that green card holders returning yesterday from those seven countries were all granted entry.

What’s with the chaos at the airports and the courts?

Henceforth, CBP agents will not allow individual aliens from those seven countries to board a flight to the U.S. So the chaos will end.

The problem arose from the 100 or so individuals that were already in transit when the order took effect. When they arrived at American airports, they were detained at customs. Standing at this point is not tantamount to being on American soil.[4] However, a federal judge in New York issued a stay and prevented the feds from sending two individuals back on a flight. Other judges have prevented officials from even detaining such persons. It’s unclear if federal agents might have made a mistake and released some of these individuals before ordering them to leave the country. Once they are released onto American soil, any effort to remove them is treated as a deportation, not an exclusion, and is subject to the due process afforded them by congressional statutes (not the Constitution).

Thus, it’s unclear if the stay even applied to any element of the order or whether it applied to anomalous circumstances or particular actions taken by federal officials that overstepped the order.

It’s also confusing because many contemporary judges have no respect for our sovereignty and have been gradually chipping away at the plenary power of Congress (or the president, pursuant to statute) to exclude aliens re-entering the country, despite years of settled law. If courts are indeed violating our sovereignty, this is the very grave danger I warned about in Stolen Sovereignty. Either way, it should not affect the ability of the administration to enforce the order against those who want to prospectively board flights to return. (For more from the author of “Separating Fact from Sickening Media Fiction on Trump’s Immigration Executive Order” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hey, CNN, Your Pathetic Contempt for Pro-Lifers Is Showing!

/0 Comments/in , , /by

For the past 44 years, pro-life activists have come to Washington, D.C., in the dead of winter to speak for the millions of unborn children who have been the victims of abortion in America. And every year the mainstream media’s pro-abortion liberal bias is on full display for all to see.

Enter CNN’s Carol Costello. Costello is the host of CNN Newsroom, and today she covered the March for Life. But take a look at how the march was characterized:

“Anti-abortion.” For years, members of the pro-life movement have stressed the concept that this is a positive movement. A life-affirming movement. It is not singularly directed in opposition to a medical procedure, abortion, but rather is a movement to defend human life in the womb. A movement to protect the right to life possessed by unborn children.

Viewers noticed:

And that is an important point. For when Costello’s program went live to CNN’s Brianna Keilar, reporting from the National Mall, the comparisons drawn between the March for Life and last week’s liberal Women’s March should raise eyebrows for conservatives.

Keilar listed the litany of issues left-wing activists at the Women’s March last week supposedly protested for, including “immigrants rights, Muslim rights … women’s rights.” She used the term “abortion rights” as well.

But did you notice what was absent? Any discussion at all of the rights of unborn children. The activists at the March for Life are not there to simply oppose abortion. They are their to defend the natural right to life endowed by our Creator possessed by every human being. And make no mistake, an unborn child in the womb is a human being. Fighting for unborn rights is fighting for human rights.

The pro-life, pro-unborn rights participants are labeled with negative language and that leads one to wonder why. But this final exchange from Costello’s program might provide viewers with some insight.

Costello brought on Deana Wallace, staff counsel at Americans United for Life, to discuss what pro-life activists are looking for in President Trump’s pick for a Supreme Court justice. Listen at the end of this clip:

Costello laughed at the notion that a justice who wants to uphold the Constitution should defend unborn children and their right to life.

She laughed! At the thought that unborn children should have the right to life.

The liberal media, ladies and gentlemen. (For more from the author of “Hey, CNN, Your Pathetic Contempt for Pro-Lifers Is Showing!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.