In an official White House statement, President Obama denounced the “harmful practice of conversion therapy,” a therapeutic method designed to help people overcome unwanted same-sex attraction.
“My administration is striving to better understand the needs of LGBT adults and to provide affordable, welcoming, and supportive housing to aging LGBT Americans,” the president writes in his Presidential Proclamation for LGBT Pride Month, a declaration that has become an annual tradition. “It is also why we oppose subjecting minors to the harmful practice of conversion therapy, and why we are continuing to promote equality and foster safe and supportive learning environments for all students.”
The latter is an apparent reference to his controversial federal guidance that all public schools and universities must allow members of one sex to use the restrooms, showers, and overnight accommodations (including dorm rooms) of the opposite biological sex or lose federal funding.
However, the president took the opportunity of his last pride month proclamation to reiterate his support for a federal ban on reparative therapy for minors, a position he shares with Hillary Clinton.
Their real agenda may have nothing to do with concern over the safety of LGBT youth, an expert tells LifeSiteNews. (Read more from “Obama Touts Transgender Restrooms, Blasts ‘Harmful Practice of Conversion Therapy'” HERE)
When President Barack Obama first visited Elkhart, Indiana, in March 2009, the county’s unemployment rate had just spiked to 18.9 percent—the highest in the country.
Pointing to those numbers at the time, Obama urged Congress to pass an $800 billion economic stimulus package to keep the nation from slipping further into a recession “we may be unable to reverse.”
Seven years later, the town and surrounding county “look considerably better,” says Elkhart’s new mayor Tim Neese, a Republican. Unemployment has dropped to around 4 percent, manufacturing has returned, and help wanted signs are everywhere, he said.
On Wednesday, Obama will return to the rejuvenated district to highlight what he considers one of his administration’s greatest success stories. “The story of Elkhart’s recovery is the story of America’s recovery,” the president said in a statement.
But some Hoosier business leaders, local lawmakers, and analysts tell The Daily Signal that the state did the majority of the heavy lifting.
In advance of the president’s visit on Tuesday, Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., cautioned that the visit “shouldn’t be about glad-handing, but should instead be a celebration of Elkhart’s strong work ethic and renewed economic success.”
In a statement to The Daily Signal, Coats said he hopes that Obama “also acknowledges the pro-growth policies pursued by the state of Indiana, which have made our state one of the nation’s economic success stories.”
The leader of Indiana’s state Senate put the situation in starker terms.
“What’s happening in Elkhart isn’t because of the federal government, it’s despite it,” said Sen. David Long, the ranking Republican in the state Senate who represents the neighboring Fort Wayne area.
The recreational vehicle industry “dominates” the Elkhart economy, explained Jerry Conover, director of the Indiana Business Research Center at Indiana University. The professor said that more than half of area jobs, about 60,000, come from the industry.
Known as the “RV Capital of the World,” reliance on that business makes Elkhart subject to dramatic swings and shifts in the market, Conover explains. In 2009, when the economy started to slump, unemployment spiked.
In response, the Obama administration pushed Elkhart to diversify its industry and promised millions of dollars of grants to jumpstart an electric car industry specifically. With a $39.2 million federal grant, officials at Navistar Inc. predicted they could create 700 jobs.
“That was not nearly as successful as we had hoped,” Neese noted: Navistar Inc. and similar electric car ventures came to a halt shortly afterward.
“The only thing [Obama] promised was to come in and transform a lot of these jobs into electrical vehicle jobs and they were going to reinvent the Elkhart economy,” Long said. “There’s nothing to show for it.”
Asked about other attempts to spur growth, Conover said he couldn’t “really recall anything specific to the RV industry” from the federal stimulus. He did note that more general infrastructure projects probably created jobs and put some “money in local cash registers.”
Now that the town has turned around though, Obama credits the revival to “the choices we made as a nation.” But Republicans argue that slashing corporate and individual income taxes along with streamlining regulation made the change possible.
Under Gov. Mike Pence, a Republican, tax rates fell by half a percentage point in 2016 for the fourth consecutive year from 7 percent to 6.5 percent, in order to create an attractive tax environment for companies.
Mark Dobson, the president of the Economic Development Corporation of Elkhart County, credits the revival to coordination between state lawmakers and the local business community.
In the Indianapolis capital, Hoosier lawmakers are “excelling by setting a table in a very favorable fashion for growth,” he said. And in the manufacturing district in Elkhart, leaders and workers united to “do a phenomenal job returning from the downturn.” (For more from the author of “Indiana Lawmakers Reject Obama’s Stimulus Success Story” please click HERE)
Shortly after the failed al-Qaida “underwear bomber” plot to massacre 290 passengers on a Christmas Day flight to Detroit, President Obama scolded the nation’s intelligence community for failing to “connect the dots” . . .
But Obama’s words were not only dispiriting to Haney and many of his DHS colleagues, they were filled with wicked irony.
Just before the Christmas Day attack, Haney had been ordered by his superiors at DHS to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamic terror groups from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS).
These types of records, Haney explained, are the “dots” that enable DHS Customs and Border Protection officers to see patterns that could pose a threat to the nation’s security . . .
As Haney explains in his new, revelatory book “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad,” the order to scrub the records came even after the trial of an Islamic charity exposed the vast Muslim Brotherhood network in the U.S. and its stated aim, according to FBI evidence, to “destroy Western Civilization from within.” (Read more from “DHS Agent: Obama Erased My Intel, Then Scolded Me” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/8403802474_f593ae3964_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-30 23:26:182016-06-05 00:14:01DHS Agent: Obama Erased My Intel, Then Scolded Me
Responding to criticism of President Obama’s handling of terrorism, White House press secretary Josh Earnest boasted Thursday of all the setbacks the Islamic State has experienced in recent months, noting that in Iraq “45 percent of the populated area that ISIL previously controlled has been retaken from them. In Syria, that figure is now 20 percent.”
That’s like a patient who ignored a cancer diagnosis bragging that he finally reduced the tumor in his lung — glossing over the fact that he let it spread and metastasize to his other organs. If he had attacked the Islamic State cancer early, Obama could have stopped it from spreading in the first place. But instead, he dismissed the terrorist group as the “JV team” that was “engaged in various local power struggles and disputes” and did not have “the capacity and reach of a bin Laden” and did not pose “a direct threat to us.” He did nothing, while the cancer grew in Syria and then spread in Iraq.
Now the cancer has spread and metastasized across the world.
According to a recent CNN analysis, since declaring its caliphate in 2014, the Islamic State has carried out 90 attacks in 21 countries outside of Iraq and Syria that have killed 1,390 people and injured more than 2,000 others. The Islamic State has a presence in more than a dozen countries and has declared “provinces” in Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Post reported in 2015 that “since the withdrawal of most US and international troops in December, the Islamic State has steadily made inroads in Afghanistan” where it has “poured pepper into the wounds of their enemies … seared their hands in vats of boiling oil … blindfolded, tortured and blown apart [villagers] with explosives buried underneath them.”
And while the Islamic State spreads and grows, al-Qaeda is making a comeback. Obama is touting the killing of Taliban leader Akhtar Mohammad Mansour as “an important milestone,” but the truth is that the Taliban has made major military gains in Afghanistan — and that has opened the door to al-Qaeda. The Post reported in October that “American airstrikes targeted what was ‘probably the largest’ al-Qaeda training camp found in the 14-year Afghan war.” Sounds good except for one small problem: There were no major al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan when Obama took office. Now it is once again training terrorists in the land where it trained operatives for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Al-Qaeda has also regained lost ground in Yemen, the country where it trained and deployed the underwear bomber who nearly blew up a plane bound for Detroit in 2009. And as a recent report from the Institute for the Study of War and the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project notes, the “Syrian al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al Nusra poses one of the most significant long-term threats of any Salafi-jihadi group” and “is much more dangerous to the US than the ISIS model in the long run.”
Overall, Gen. Jack Keane recently testified that al-Qaeda has “grown fourfold in the last five years.”
We’re lying to ourselves if we think that the violence we are witnessing is going to be confined to the Middle East … or South Asia … or North Africa … or Europe. It is only a matter of time before the Islamic State and al-Qaeda bring this violence here to our shores.
Indeed, in many ways we face a situation far more dangerous and complex than we did before Sept. 11, 2001. Before 9/11, we largely faced a danger from one terrorist network (al-Qaeda) with safe haven in one nation (Afghanistan). Today, we face danger from multiple terrorist networks with safe havens in a dozen or more countries.
Moreover, we face something we have never seen before: two terrorist networks — the Islamic State and al-Qaeda — competing with each other for the hearts of the jihadi faithful and the backing of jihadi financiers. The way to win that competition is to be the first to carry out a catastrophic attack here in the United States.
When it came to terrorist networks, the George W. Bush administration had a mantra: We’re going to fight them over there so that we do not have to face them here at home. Obama abandoned that mantra. And now the danger is getting closer to home with each passing day. (For more from the author of “OBAMA’S LEGACY: The Terrorist Cancer Is… Growing” please click HERE)
Just passed over the transom by Yuri, Savage lays waste to the Obama apology tour, Chapter XXXVI, this time visiting Hiroshima to honor the war dead:
Now, the Imperial Japanese Military, which he’s including with our heroes, committed thousands of war crimes in World War II, resulting in the deaths of millions of civilians and prisoners of war.
And yet your president, this anti-American walking disaster, stabbed all of our World War II dead in their graves. He spit on their graves.
So let me ask you something. How do you feel about your president spitting on U.S. military deaths in World War II?
Tell me who you lost in World War II that this ungrateful – oh, I wish this wasn’t a radio show; I wish I were just sitting in a barroom with you. I’d like to tell you what I really think of this man.
He honors all war dead in Hiroshima while the Japanese prime minster, Mr. Abi, says he has no plans to visit Pearl Harbor?
… [Obama] forgot the Rape of Nanking, the Bangka Island Massacre, where Australian Army nurses were raped and slaughtered by his friends.
He forgot the Bataan Death March conducted by the peaceful Japanese war machine.
He forgot the Sandakan Death March
He forgot murder and cannibalism on the Kokoda Track.
He forgot conscripting women for sexual slavery in Japanese Army brothels.
He forgot the mutilation and murder of Dutch civilians in Borneo.
He forgot the murder and cannibalism of captured American pilots.
He forgot the murder of American pilots and air crew at Midway.
He forgot the bombing of the hospital ship Manunda.
He forgot the sinking of the hospital ship Centaur.
He forgot the extermination of survivors of merchant ships sunk by the Japanese.
Barack Obama, your president, the most evil, anti-American enemy of these people, called Americans, told reporters in Japan his historic visit to Hiroshima will honor all those who were lost in World War II…
…It’s a new sad day, a new low.
He knows what he’s doing. He’s a smart guy.
Now, it’s true he was raised in a home that was run by a single mother, and a single mother poisoned his mind.
But I don’t excuse him. He’s the president of the United States.
He obviously was spoon-fed hatred for the United States of America by mommy. And now we have been putting up with it for over seven years.
And I told you that he would reach a new crescendo before this was over.
He loves putting the knife into America and turning it.
He loves throwing salt in our wounds.
He loves doing everything he can in the last days of his despotic regime to make everyone hate him even more.
As a brief sidenote, my Grandpa survived World War II and the Pacific Theater, but many, many, many other heroes did not.
We have a disgrace, a charlatan and a failure living on Pennsylvania Avenue and the day cannot come quick enough when we watch this man and his entire family pack up their belongings and leave the halls of power once and for all, hopefully to never be heard from again. Unlikely, I know, but — then again — I’m a dreamer. (For more from the author of “HIROSHIMA: Obama “Just Put a Knife in America and Turned It” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-61.jpg8001600Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-30 01:28:272016-05-30 01:28:27HIROSHIMA: Obama “Just Put a Knife in America and Turned It”
Lawmakers in Oklahoma have introduced a measure that would urge Congress to impeach Barack Obama over his controversial federal transgender guidance for public schools and universities.
State Senator Anthony Sykes and State Rep. John Bennett introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 43, which says that the threat to withhold federal funding if schools do not open their restrooms, lockers, and showers to members of the opposite biological sex “exceeds the authority of the federal government.”
The non-binding resolution asks the state’s delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives “to file articles of impeachment against the President of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of Education and any other federal official liable to impeachment who has exceeded his or her constitutional authority” by participating in the guidance.
“The Constitution of the United States does not grant the executive branch of the federal government any authority whatsoever over the public education system, nor over the use of restrooms or other facilities thereof,” according to the motion, which currently has the support of 15 state legislators.
The non-binding resolution also asks the Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt “to defend, by any means necessary, the interests of this state against the overreach” of the Obama administration. (Read more from “Impeach Obama Over Transgender Rules, Oklahoma Legislators Urge” HERE)
Obama must be watching the unfolding 2016 election with a growing sense of horror. The Democrats got the greatest gift imaginable when Donald Trump got the Republican nomination, but Hillary Clinton has already all but frittered away the greatest natural advantage any politician could possibly have – being a woman running against Donald Trump. Clinton’s inept, bungling campaign has alienated huge portions of the blue collar Democrat voting base and has made a race that should be a cakewalk into one that is actually competitive.
One thing that Barack Obama has shown during his seven and a half years in office is that he really is an ideologue. Unlike Clinton, he cares deeply about actually advancing progressive causes, and he is nearly obsessed with his legacy – much of which will be built on unilateral action that could easily be undone by a hostile successor (if we suppose that Trump would actually care to undo any of it). On the other hand, if a Democrat succeeds him, he knows that many of these programs will become much more difficult to undo.
His alliance with Clinton has always been one of political convenience rather than one of genuine friendship, if the Democrat insiders who constantly gab to the media are to be believed. I don’t believe for a moment that Obama has any personal investment in Hillary Clinton becoming President – he’d personally be just as happy with Bernie if not more so.
Moreover, his own Justice Department is allegedly threatening open mutiny if action is not taken against Clinton after the probe into her private email server is completed. If Clinton were in a strong position for the general election, no doubt Obama would order Lynch to softpedal any action that lands on Clinton herself, no matter what the facts say. However, Obama can read the polls as well as anyone, and he knows that Sanders would walk all over Donald Trump, whereas Clinton might well find herself in a dogfight. (Read more from “Will Obama Indict Clinton to Save His Party?” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Barack_Obama_talking_to_Hillary_Clinton_in_Phnom_Penh.jpg27314096Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-28 23:33:042016-05-28 23:54:41Will Obama Indict Clinton to Save His Party?
The Obama administration is stepping in to prevent Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from being deposed in a legal case dealing with her use of a private email server for classified information.
The Hill reported Friday that the Justice Department has filed a motion opposing a request from legal watchdog Judicial Watch that Clinton be deposed.
The filing states Judicial Watch is, “seeking instead to transform these proceedings into a wide-ranging inquiry into matters beyond the scope of the court’s order and unrelated to the FOIA request at issue in this case.”
Attorneys filed the motion Thursday, calling the request to depose Clinton “wholly inappropriate.”
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the request to have Clinton deposed was made for an important purpose. “Mrs. Clinton’s testimony will help the courts determine whether her email practices thwarted the Freedom of Information Act.”
The case against Clinton is a result of Judicial Watch’s attempts to obtain documentation related to the 2012 terrorist attack’s in Benghazi. Investigation into the incident expanded into questions concerning Clinton’s handling of classified emails.
Although Clinton is not expected to be called on to answer questions in the original case, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan said, “Based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary.”
The Justice Department called the request to depose Clinton “overbroad and duplicative.” The motion also asserted the depositions in the original case should be finished before attempting to question Clinton. (For more from the author of “Obama Administration Files Motion in an Effort to Protect Clinton” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/2616365071_39d1125d07_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-28 23:24:372016-05-29 00:01:11Obama Administration Files Motion in an Effort to Protect Clinton
President Barack Obama’s speech at Hiroshima was a poignant discourse on the horrors of war. He spoke eloquently of the death of innocent lives and the hope for a better tomorrow. But his trip is fraught with the potential for misinterpretation.
As the end of his presidency approaches, Obama sought to resurrect his utopian vision of a world without nuclear weapons that he first articulated in 2009.
The Obama administration promised that the president’s trip would be focused on the future. But by delivering his remarks at Hiroshima, he needlessly resurrected painful and contentious historic issues.
In his remarks, the president did not explicitly apologize for the U.S. decision to use atomic weapons to end World War II as some had advocated. But he implicitly criticizes the “terrible force unleashed” at Hiroshima and laments “how often does material advancement or social innovation blind us to this truth? How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause.”
His comments reflect an aloof view disdainful of all violence, lumping aggressors and defenders together. Hiroshima was a tragedy but so were all the lives lost in the preceding years of conflict.
Visiting the National World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., is a sobering experience. The cascade of gold stars adorning the walls are a heart-rending depiction of the 400,000 American service members who died in both the Pacific and European theaters of war.
Each of the 4,048 stars represents 100 American deaths—sons, fathers, and brothers who never came home. Imagine the human tragedy if the number of gold stars were doubled, which would result from a full-scale Allied invasion of Japan.
Nor does Obama mention the millions of Japanese lives spared by the events at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In his memoir, President Harry Truman wrote that after Japan rejected another plea for surrender, he had no qualms about his decision to drop the bombs “if millions of lives could be saved … I meant both American and Japanese lives.”
Emperor Hirohito announced to his subjects that he based his decision to end the war on the “new and most cruel bomb … Should we continue to fight, it would … result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation.” In addition, there are estimates that 100,000 to 250,000 non-combatants in occupied Asia would have died for every month that the war was extended.
Hiroshima reflects the tragedy not just of a weapon of war, but of aggressive regimes and the wars they impose. Rather than a utopian quest to eliminate nuclear arms, he should have called on nations to band together against the despots who still threaten to impose their will over weaker neighbors.
As Americans prepare to enjoy the Memorial Day holiday, we should reflect on the meaning of the day.
We honor the brave men and women of the U.S. military who for centuries have fought and made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom for ourselves and others overseas subjugated to despots. Many of those did so during the four years brought on by the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Rather than describing an idealistic vision of the future, perhaps Obama should have pondered George Orwell’s comment that “People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
As President Ronald Reagan declared in his inauguration speech, “The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price.” (For more from the author of “Obama’s Hiroshima Speech Reflects His Unrealistic View of History” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/barack-obama-45-110661297801680sCW.jpg9441280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-28 00:22:212016-05-28 00:22:21Obama’s Hiroshima Speech Reflects His Unrealistic View of History
On Wednesday night, 43 Republican members of Congress joined the Democrats to vote for President Barack Obama’s transgender agenda.
Whereas last week Congress voted to reject this proposal—known as the Maloney amendment—last night they voted to ratify Obama’s 2014 executive order barring federal contractors from what it describes as “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation and gender identity” in their private employment policies.
And, of course, “discrimination” on the basis of “gender identity” can be something as simple as having a bathroom policy based on biological sex, not gender identity, as we learned last week from Obama’s transgender directives. And “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation” can be something as reasonable as an adoption agency preferring married moms and dads for orphans, than other arrangements.
Indeed, in the past few weeks we’ve seen additional examples of what counts as “discrimination” on the basis of “gender identity.”
The New York City Commission on Human Rights issued official legal guidance saying employers can be fined up to $250,000 for not addressing employees by the pronoun of their choice—including pronouns such as “ze” and “hir.” As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh explains, this would require “employers and businesses to prevent [the use of “wrong” pronouns] by co-workers and patrons and not just by themselves or their own employees.”
A public school district in Oregon paid a teacher $60,000 because colleagues declined to use the pronoun “they” to describe the teacher. The teacher, Leo Soell, does “not identify as male or female but rather transmasculine and genderqueer, or androgynous.” As Volokh explains: “Soell wants people to call Soell ‘they,’ and submitted a complaint to the school district objecting (in part) that other schoolteachers engaged in ‘harassment’ by, among other things, ‘refusing to call me by my correct name and gender to me or among themselves’ (emphasis added).”
The 4th Circuit Court has said a Virginia school district must allow bathroom access based on “gender identity” not biology. The school district created a policy that says bathroom and locker room access is primarily based on biology, while also creating accommodations for transgender students: only biological girls can use the girls’ room, only biological boys can use the boys’ room, and any student can use one of the three single-occupancy bathrooms, which the school created specifically to accommodate transgender students. But the court said this commonsense policy was itself “discrimination” on the basis of “gender identity.”
Congress should not be ratifying Obama’s radical transgender agenda and imposing these outcomes on private employers just because they contract with the government.
All Americans should be free to contract with the government without penalty because of their reasonable beliefs about contentious issues. The federal government should not use government contracting to reshape civil society about controversial issues that have nothing to do with the federal contract at stake.
Obama’s executive order and the Maloney amendment treat conscientious judgments about behavior as if they were invidious acts of discrimination akin to racism or sexism.
But sexual orientation and gender identity are not like race. Indeed, sexual orientation and gender identity are unclear, ambiguous terms. They can refer to voluntary behaviors as well as thoughts and inclinations, and it is reasonable for employers to make distinctions based on actions.
By contrast, “race” and “sex” clearly refer to traits, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, these traits (unlike voluntary behaviors) do not affect fitness for any job.
Congress tried to minimize the damage of the Maloney amendment with two provisions last night. One provision, introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., amended the Maloney amendment to say that it couldn’t violate the U.S. Constitution. Another provision, the Byrne Amendment, attempted to attach existing religious liberty protections to the bill. Neither adequately protects against the damage of Maloney.
Liberal activist judges will do all they can to ensure that sexual orientation and gender identity policies will trump religious liberty protections.
This is why Congress should not be elevating sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class garnering special legal privileges.
Here is a list of the 43 Republicans who voted for the amendment:
Justin Amash, Mich.
Susan Brooks, Ind.
Mike Coffman, Colo.
Ryan Costello, Pa.
Carlos Curbelo, Fla.
Rodney Davis, Ill.
Jeff Denham, Calif.
Charlie Dent, Pa.
Mario Diaz-Balart, Fla.
Bob Dold, Ill.
Daniel Donovan, N.Y.
Tom Emmer, Minn.
Michael Fitzpatrick, Pa.
Rodney Frelinghuysen, N.J.
Chris Gibson, N.Y.
Joe Heck, Nev.
Will Hurd, Texas
Darrell Issa, Calif.
David Jolly, Fla.
John Katko, N.Y.
Adam Kinzinger, Ill.
Leonard Lance, N.J.
Frank LoBiondo, N.J.
Tom MacArthur, N.J.
Martha McSally, Ariz.
Pat Meehan, Pa.
Luke Messer, Ind.
Erik Paulsen, Minn.
Bruce Poliquin, Maine
Tom Reed, N.Y.
David Reichert, Wash.
Jim Renacci, Ohio
Tom Rooney, Fla.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Fla.
John Shimkus, Ill.
Elise Stefanik, N.Y.
Fred Upton, Mich.
David Valadao, Calif.
Greg Walden, Ore.
Mimi Walters, Calif.
David Young, Iowa
Todd Young, Ind.
Lee Zeldin, N.Y.
(For more from the author of “43 Republicans Join Democrats to Support Obama’s Transgender Agenda” please click HERE)
