Posts

Stunning Poll Shows How Many Americans Say President Trump Is Racist After ‘Go Back’ Tweets

/0 Comments/in , /by

By The Blaze. A startling new poll shows “virtually no change” in the percentage of Americans who believe President Donald Trump is racist after his controversial “go back” tweets.

The survey from Huffington Post and YouGov showed that 50 percent of Americans thought the president was racist, while 35 percent said he isn’t racist. . .

Another 60 percent of Americans said the tweets were inappropriate, while only 49 percent said they were racist, according to the YouGov poll.

The president began a firestorm of criticism with his tweets calling for four Democratic freshman minority members of Congress to go back to their home countries, despite only one being an immigrant.

The media and Democratic politicians have excoriated the president, while even some Republicans have called out the tweets as being inappropriate. (Read more from “Stunning Poll Shows How Many Americans Say President Trump Is Racist After ‘Go Back’ Tweets” HERE)

_________________________________________________

Here’s What the Public Thought of the Michael Cohen Hearing: Poll

By HuffPo. About half the American public agrees with Michael Cohen’s characterization of the president of the United States as a racist and a con man, according to a HuffPost/YouGov survey taken after Cohen, Donald Trump’s former longtime personal attorney, testified before Congress. But that hearing, like a string of other significant developments, has done little to budge Americans’ ossified views of the investigation into Trump’s presidential campaign. . .

Americans say, 48 percent to 35 percent, that they believe Trump is a racist, with 17 percent unsure. They say, 50 percent to 27 percent, that they believe Trump has committed financial fraud, with 23 percent unsure. (Read more from “Here’s What the Public Thought of the Michael Cohen Hearing: Poll” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Federal Judge Sides With Trump on Rule Allowing for Non-Obamacare — More Affordable — Insurance Plans

/0 Comments/in , /by

A Trump administration effort to make more affordable, short-term medical insurance plans available to more people despite Obamacare’s onerous regulations survived a federal court challenge on Friday.

In a ruling for the United States District Court in Washington, D.C., Judge Richard Leon dismissed a challenge to the 2018 regulation brought by a group of organizations offering insurance plans. The suing organizations say that the rule undermined the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

“Not only is any potential negative impact” from the Trump regulation “minimal,” Leon wrote, “but its benefits are undeniable.”

In August 2018, the Trump administration announced a regulation that would re-expand the availability of short-term medical insurance plans that are less expensive partly because they are not subject to the same kinds of regulations that make Obamacare-compliant insurance plans so expensive.

“We will deliver relief to American workers, families, and small businesses, who right now are being crushed by Obamacare, by increasing freedom, choice, and opportunity for the American people,” read a statement from the president alongside the White House’s announcement.

Opponents of the plans say that these less expensive plans undermine Obamacare and provide people with spotty coverage.

However, since Congress set the Obamacare individual mandate penalty at zero, Judge Leon ruled that the new rule simply helps people who cannot afford skyrocketing insurance costs.

“Because Congress effectively eliminated the individual mandate, relatively healthy Exchange enrollees are no longer choosing between paying ACA-compliant plan premiums or a fine. Their choice now is between paying ACA plan premiums and going uninsured altogether,” Leon continued. “By modestly (re)expanding the utility of less expensive [less-regulated] plans, the Rule aims to minimize the harm and expense that would result from these individuals opting to forgo health insurance in the face of rising premiums.”

To claims that the short-term plans would sabotage Obamacare, Leon added, “There is no indication in the evidence submitted that the Rule is having or will have the type of impact — substantial exodus from the individual market Exchanges — that would threaten the ACA’s structural core,” despite plaintiffs’ claims to the contrary.

The judge also ruled that the Trump administration was completely within the power afforded to it by federal law to issue the rule, writing, “Congress clearly did not intend for the law to apply to all species of individual health insurance” because the lawmakers who passed it “were not rigidly pursuing the ACA-compliant market at all costs, e.g., at the risk of individuals going without insurance altogether.” (For more from the author of “Federal Judge Sides With Trump on Rule Allowing for Non-Obamacare — More Affordable — Insurance Plans” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

President Trump: We’ve Shot Down an Iranian Drone Threating U.S. Marines

/0 Comments/in , /by

Speaking from the White House Thursday afternoon, President Trump announced the United States shot down an Iranian drone in the Strait of Hormuz after it approached the USS Boxer carrying 2,000 Marines. The USS Boxer is an amphibious assault ship.

“The Boxer took defense action against the drone which had closed into a very close distance, approximately a thousand yards, ignoring multiple calls to stand down and was threatening the safety of the ship and the ship’s crew. The drone was immediately destroyed,” Trump said from the East Room. “This is the latest of many provocative and hostile actions by Iran against vessels operating in international waters. The United States reserves the right to defend our personnel, facilities, and interests, and calls upon all nations to condemn Iran’s attempt to disrupt freedom of navigation and global commerce. I also call on other nations to protect their ships as they go through the Strait of Hormuz and to work with us in the future.”

(Read more from “President Trump: We’ve Shot Down an Iranian Drone Threating U.S. Marines” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Here Comes the McConnell Budget ‘Deal’ That Will Rule the Rest of Trump’s Presidency

/0 Comments/in , /by

“The huge increase in the national debt demanded by and incurred during the current Administration has placed a significant burden on future generations. We must impose firm caps on future debt, accelerate the repayment of the trillions we now owe in order to reaffirm our principles of responsible and limited government, and remove the burdens we are placing on future generations.” ~GOP Platform, July 2016

Three years later and $2.6 trillion deeper into the red, will the last conservative in Washington turn out the lights?

Senate Republicans are now “praying” that President Trump accepts the “deal” they cut with House Democrats to destroy Trump’s presidency and any leverage he will ever have – not just on spending but on important policy issues, such as immigration and abortion funding. Now is the time for conservatives not just to pray but to demand that the president reject the deal and simply call for a continuing resolution to keep fighting for spending cuts and the proper policy riders in the fiscal year 2020 budget.

Thanks to the one policy success conservatives secured in the past decade, spending will automatically go down by $35 billion on October 1, when the budget caps kick in, and by another $89 billion on January 1, when sequestration takes effect. Yet from day one of budget negotiations, there was no disagreement between GOP leaders and Nancy Pelosi. They both agreed on unconditionally raising the debt ceiling for two years and busting the budget caps for not just this year but next year as well, for a total of over $300 billion in more spending.

We are now spending 18 percent more than in Obama’s final year and more than during the Great Recession, even though this is a time of economic prosperity. It’s a black mark and an embarrassment to this party. But rather than applying the brakes to the runaway train, they are seeking to disable the brakes. They believe that the debt limit, not the debt itself, is the problem.

And so they have agreed to an unconditional debt ceiling suspension for two years with absolutely no spending cuts. On top of that, they would bust the budget caps for the next two years over and beyond current levels, for a price tag that will likely be north of $300 billion.

Trump needs to announce that he will veto this bill. He needs to announce his red lines both on spending levels and border policy and that he will be willing to sign a clean continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government while debate continues but will not sign a long-term bill consigning his presidency to failure and our country to indebtedness to China. At least with a clean CR, current levels are maintained, and he always has the leverage looming over Democrats that once the short duration of the CR expires, the budget cuts automatically go into place. By immediately signing a long-term busting of the budget caps, however, he will not only lose the opportunity to cut spending, but will increase spending well above current levels.

This “deal” demonstrates that there is no daylight between the two parties on spending. Republicans have no desire to fight for defunding Planned Parenthood or securing the border in return for spending like socialists. Thus, they are fiscal, social, and national defense liberals.

By signing this deal, Trump will irrevocably put us on a trajectory of immutable indebtedness, where just the interest payments on the debt alone will surge higher than the cost of the runaway Medicaid program in a few years. As serious as the spending crisis was during Obama’s tenure, because interest rates were so low, interest payments remained stagnant. This is an entirely new ballgame today and is holding us back from what should be 4-5 percent GDP growth.

Also, by singing this deal, he will give away his last remaining point of leverage on the border for the remainder of this term. As it stands now, Trump has the status quo of automatic budget caps on his side. Democrats are the ones who need a deal for a new law in order to secure their spending priorities. Trump merely has to allow the status quo to play out. This gives him leverage to demand more funding for ICE deportations, border enforcement, and the wall in return for more welfare spending.

The only thing worse than not fulfilling his campaign promises is for Trump to permanently give away his leverage so he can’t live on to fight another day. This was the big mistake in the February omnibus. Had he just demanded a clean CR, he would have had leverage over the Democrats, because the news of the border emergency reached a breaking point in early March when CBP announced the February border numbers. Remember, back then, Democrats were still saying that border numbers were at historic lows. Had Trump been working with a continuous government funding deadline coinciding with that news, he would have been able to batter them into submission. Instead, he signed a bill that made current border policy worse in several key ways.

In March 2018, after Trump reluctantly signed two consecutive budget bills increasing spending and jettisoning his immigration priorities, he promised he would “never again” sign bills like that. Instead, that is exactly what he has been convinced to do multiple times both by GOP congressional leaders and by swamp-dwellers in the administration. Now is quite literally his last chance to fulfill that promise.

In this case, “never again” requires nothing more than holding the line on the status quo. The veto pen is the single most powerful tool in government. (For more from the author of “Here Comes the Mcconnell Budget ‘Deal’ That Will Rule the Rest of Trump’s Presidency” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The President Should Not Play Ball With Illegitimate Border Lawsuit

/0 Comments/in , /by

Could a third-party organization get standing to select any district court it wants to control and determine who is admitted into this country at the international border? That is the question in light of the ACLU’s lawsuit against Trump’s asylum regulation. It is also the question the Trump administration needs to emphatically answer right now before lending legitimacy to this abuse of separation of powers.

On Tuesday, like clockwork, the ACLU and a bunch of open-borders groups sued the Department of Justice’s latest asylum regulation that simply affirms the integrity of the system. The proposed rule would limit asylum to those who didn’t game the system and pass up other countries that are a party to the asylum treaty before seeking asylum in the U.S. The lawsuit was so contrived that it was likely drafted even before the regulation was published, because it erroneously names John Sanders as head of Customs and Border Protection when the current acting commissioner is Mark Morgan.

Trump has the opportunity to cut this off and call upon his attorney general to declare that there is no legitimacy to this lawsuit and decline to send lawyers to the San Francisco court for this dog-and-pony show.

Forum-shopping and nationwide injunctions are illegitimate

It is simply absurd and illegal for a district court not on the border to rule on a national – even international – issue affecting entry at the border. Most of the family units are coming in at the Texas border, and none of them are in the Northern District of California. Only two percent coming in at the California border at all. Why did the ACLU go there? Because it has a 13-1 majority of Democrat appointees, and that is the district that has single-handedly vitiated the rest of our existing immigration laws.

It’s time for the Trump administration to once and for all declare that nationwide and universal injunctions by district judges are unconstitutional and violate the inherent limitation of “cases and controversies” spelled out in Article III powers. This will affect the rest of his presidency and the future of the republic on every issue, but most certainly on border security. Now is the time to force that issue.

There is no judicial jurisdiction over foreign affairs

It is momentous that the ACLU chose the Northern District of California, a point that must be publicized by the president and his attorney general. This is the very district court that, in 1996, said that the “exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty” and that “the right to do so stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. (Encuentro del Canto Popular v. Christopher, N.D. Cal. 1996.) There is nothing more to talk about. Even if the Left is correct about the reading of base asylum statutes, which it is not because asylum is discretionary and never supersedes national security concerns, the president always has the authority to shut it off. It’s not just from statutory 1182(f) delegated authority, but as this very court said, from his own Article II authority over entry at the border. The president can deny entry to anyone he wants, certainly when we are seeing dozens of terrible effects on the American people and on the migrants themselves because of the rush at the border and the empowerment of the cartels and MS-13.

Once Trump establishes this is a foreign affairs issue, it destroys the Left’s next argument. The ACLU alleges that the DOJ violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by not waiting 30 days to potentially implement the policy. Aside from the numerous reasons why the APA doesn’t apply here (see Alito’s partial dissent in the census case), 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(1) explicitly exempts a “foreign affairs function” from the APA.

The Courts have zero jurisdiction to give standing

If the Trump administration agrees to legitimize this case, it will not only give our sovereignty over immigration to the courts, something the Supreme Court has rejected for 130 years, it would be allowing courts to veto any policy without any requirement for Article III standing.

Courts don’t veto policies or laws. There is no judicial veto in the Constitution. What courts can do is grant relief to plaintiffs with valid standing when a cognizable injury is evident as a result of the denial of a constitutional right or a legally protected interest. As the Supreme Court said in 2013, “The law of Article III standing, which is built on separation-of-powers principles, serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.” (Clapper v. Amnesty International USA.)

7.8 billion people in the world simply don’t have standing to sue for the right to come here. That has long been settled. In Lem Moon Sing (1895), the court said that not only does Congress have full authority to exclude without judicial intervention, but the executive branch officials do as well. The court noted that one could not argue that if an “alien is entitled of right, by some law or treaty, to enter this country, but is nevertheless excluded by such officers” that the courts could get involved.

“That view, if sustained, would bring into the courts every case of an alien claiming the right to come into the United States under some law or treaty, but who was prevented from doing so by the executive branch of the government. This would defeat the manifest purpose of Congress in committing to subordinate immigration officers and to the Secretary of the Treasury exclusive authority to determine whether a particular alien seeking admission into this country belongs to the class entitled by some law or treaty to come into the country, or to a class forbidden to enter the United States.”

So, the new tactic of these refugee or open-borders agitation groups is to sue as if they, not the aliens, are the aggrieved party. Typically, the ACLU or another NGO will sue on behalf of a real plaintiff. In this case, they are asserting that they are the aggrieved party because, according to the brief filed in the N.D. of California, “The new Rule frustrates Al Otro Lado’s mission and will force Al Otro Lado to divert significant resources away from its other programs.” They claim they will lose revenue from taxpayer funds or have to strain their staff to function.

Folks, if the court were to legitimize this avenue of standing, then there is not a single policy of any sort that can’t be sued by anyone. Say you have an organization that offers legal help to tax cheats. Then government resolves to more aggressively clamp down on tax fraud. Can your tax cheat law firm get standing to sue the government because now there will be fewer clients and your revenue will be reduced? That is quite literally what the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, one of the litigants, claimed in support of obtaining standing to sue in this case.

The ACLU is bringing the lawsuit on behalf of East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otri Lado, Innovation Law Lab, and the Central American Resource Center in Los Angeles.

The president or the attorney general should deliver a national address and read some of the ACLU’s brief word for word, and the American people will see the absurdity on their own. They already understand the absurdity of forum-shopping, nationwide injunctions, and judicial tyranny of one of 94 federal courts. Trump’s advisers and lawyers need to step outside to the real America and turn away from political Twitter, and they will see the American people do not want this swarm at the border, nor do they want the ACLU and California judges usurping power. It’s time they actually fight for the forgotten American taxpayer who never gets standing in any court to uphold the rule of law and sovereignty.

We either have three branches of government, or we have 1/94th of the unelected weakest branch determining foreign affairs. (For more from the author of “The President Should Not Play Ball With Illegitimate Border Lawsuit” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Holds MAGA Rally, Proves Overwhelming Support; Crowd Goes After Omar: SEND HER BACK [VIDEO]

/0 Comments/in , /by

____________________________________________________

Trump Goes After Extremist Congresswomen

By Fox News. President Trump, at a fiery “Make America Great Again” campaign rally Wednesday night in Greenville, North Carolina, blasted four progressive congresswomen, Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, with whom he continues to spar after an ongoing feud over comments he made against them that critics deemed “racist.” . . .

Trump slammed Omar on Wednesday saying she “smeared U.S. service members in ‘Black Hawk Down.’ She slandered the brave Americans trying to keep peace in Somalia,” a dig at her Somali-American heritage. . .

Trump moved on to his critique of Tlaib, saying she “used the F-word to describe the presidency and your president.”

“That’s not nice, even for me,” Trump said. “That’s not somebody who loves our country.” . . .

Of Pressley, Trump said the congresswoman “thinks that people with the same skin color all need to think the same. She said, ‘we don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be brown voices, we don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice,'” a reference to remarks she gave at a conference this past weekend. “Can you imagine if I said that?” (Read more from “Trump Goes After Extremist Congresswomen” HERE)

____________________________________________________

Watch: Trump Rally Chants ‘Send Her Back’ After President Slams Ilhan Omar

By Breitbart. Attendees of President Donald Trump’s rally in Greenville, North Carolina, chanted “send her back” after the president slammed Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) repeated criticism of the United States on Wednesday evening.

“Omar has a history of launching vicious screeds,” the president said to chants of “send her back.”

Prior to the chants, President Trump listed off various critical statements that Omar previously said about the country, including her trivialization of the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks. (Read more from “Watch: Trump Rally Chants ‘Send Her Back’ After President Slams Ilhan Omar” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Dems Attempt at Impeachment Is Instantly Shot Down

/0 Comments/in , /by

Texas Rep. Al Green’s wild pipe dream of forcing his Democratic colleagues to vote in favor of articles of impeachment has been tabled for now. Wednesday afternoon, the House officially voted to table impeaching President Donald J. Trump. This does not mean that the dream for Rep. Green has officially died, but it does mean that it essentially gets moved to Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s desk, who will decide if and when to bring the issue back for consideration. . .

The official vote tally was 332 yeas to 95 nays with one voting present. The biggest name who voted “nay,” meaning they wanted to the actual vote to move forward was Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York.

(Read more from “Dems Attempt at Impeachment Is Instantly Shot Down” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Drops A Major Truth Bomb About Democrats And Illegal Immigration

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump invigorated conservatives on Wednesday night during a Keep America Great rally in Greenville, North Carolina. One of the points he made was about Democrats’ stance on illegal immigration, something that has upset the conservative base.

“Democrats have put the needs of foreign citizens far ahead of our own citizens. Nowhere in this world is there anything like what’s happening with immigration, with how bad it is, the Democrats’ open border policies deplete our public services, overcrowd our schools and hospitals and bring crime, drugs and deadly gangs into our community. The Democrats want to spend more money on health care for an illegal immigrant than they do for a citizen of the United States,” Trump told a crowd that booed in response.

He reminded rally goers of one important tidbit: a couple days ago, the Department of Justice charged 22 MS-13 gang members. They’ve been in the country, committing crimes for at least the last 10 years.

“These are sick people. When I call them animals, Nancy Pelosi said, ‘how dare he use that name? These are human beings.’ I don’t think they’re human beings,” he reiterated.

“Most of the people who were indicted were in our country illegally. 19 to be exact,” he said.

(Read more from “Trump Drops a Major Truth Bomb About Democrats and Illegal Immigration” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Watch: Trump Brings up Allegations That Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump brought up the allegations that far-left Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) married her brother to a group of reporters on Wednesday before boarding Marine One for his rally tonight.

A reporter asked Trump a question about Omar and Trump replied: “There’s a lot of talk about the fact that she was married to her brother. I know nothing about it. … I’m sure that somebody would be looking at that.”

Questions about Omar’s marital history have repeatedly been in the news as multiple news organizations have asked Omar to provide documents and answer specific questions that could clear up any controversy. Omar has refused to answer any questions about the matter.

Last month, the Star Tribune reported that “new investigative documents released by a state agency have given fresh life to lingering questions about the marital history of Rep. Ilhan Omar and whether she once married a man — possibly her own brother — to skirt immigration laws.”

“Sent a list of questions and a request to talk to her siblings and father, Omar declined to do so,” the Tribune added. “Omar declined to make her tax and immigration records available for this report. … Omar’s relatives could also clear the air, but they have remained silent about her marriage … She declined to make her family available for this story.”

(Read more from “Watch: Trump Brings up Allegations That Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Good Luck With That: Dems Bring Forward Articles of Impeachment Against Trump

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By PJ Media. The latest move from the Democrats’ secret campaign to help reelect Trump came Tuesday evening, first with the absurd vote to condemn President Trump for “racist” comments made against anti-Semitic and anti-American congressmwomen. But, for Texas congressman Al Green, that wasn’t enough. Green has been aggressively pushing for impeachment; on Monday he promised during a Facebook Live press conference to force an impeachment vote.

“I’m here to indicate to the world that to tolerate bigotry is to perpetuate bigotry, especially when you can do something about it […] I’m a member of the House of Representatives, and I as a member can do something about it,” Green said. “Each member of the House of Representatives can bring articles of impeachment to the floor of the House of Representatives. I’m here today to tell you, again, to bring articles of impeachment to the floor of the House of Representatives. I will do so by the end of this month.”

Well, apparently he was more anxious to move on with it because he didn’t wait for the end of the month. He made his third attempt at forcing a vote on impeachment the following evening after the House passed the resolution condemning Trump. (Read more from “Dems File Articles of Impeachment Against Trump” HERE)

______________________________________________________

House Democrat Will Defy Party Leaders and File Articles of Impeachment Against Trump

By Townhall. It has been a day of chaos on the Hill. House Democrats brought forward a resolution condemning President Trump for his tweets targeting Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashid Tlaib (D-MI), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) for their arguably anti-American views and their left-wing agenda that will destroy the country. This crew has peddled anti-Semitism, refused to condemn Antifa violence, and trivialized the 9/11 attacks. And they defend each other when they get caught dabbling in such antics as well. These four are the Marxist Girl Scout Troop from the seventh circle of hell. Pelosi condemned the tweets, as did the Democrat-media complex, as racist and said so on the House floor. House Republicans objected noting that this declaration may have violated the rules and asked that it be edited or stricken from the record. In a party-line vote, House Democrats overrode the rules and the GOP objections.

As this bonfire gets going, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) said he would bring forward articles of impeachment against Donald Trump, defying the House Democratic leadership who knows the perilous nature of this route should a single thing go wrong and there are more than a few ways where this move can go off the hinges. Green has attempted to bring forward such articles before and he pretty much gave the game away as to why he’s doing this: he’s afraid of Trump being re-elected (via WaPo):

Rep. Al Green will file articles of impeachment against President Trump on Tuesday night, triggering a contentious vote in the coming days to confront an issue that has bitterly divided the Democratic Party.

The Texas congressman, who notified Democratic leaders of his decision on Tuesday, said the House must impeach Trump for racist remarks suggesting four minority congresswoman “go back” to their ancestral countries as well as other comments made in the past. The four Democrats — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) — are all citizens; three were born in the United States.

(Read more from “House Democrat Will Defy Party Leaders and File Articles of Impeachment Against Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE