Posts

Trump: ‘No One Should Be Censoring Sermons or Targeting Pastors’

President Donald Trump asked two nuns with the Little Sisters of the Poor to join him in front of a Rose Garden audience Thursday before he signed an executive order easing enforcement of Obamacare regulations forcing religious organizations to pay for employee health plans covering contraception and abortion-inducing drugs.

Trump’s order also takes aim at a 1954 law prohibiting pastors and other religious leaders from supporting specific candidates from the pulpit.

However, the order is scaled back considerably from a draft, leaked in February, that also addressed religious organizations’ freedom in hiring staff, prompting mixed reviews from conservatives.

“We know all too well the attacks against the Little Sisters of the Poor, incredible nuns who care for the sick, the elderly, and the forgotten,” Trump said, before asking representatives of the Catholic order to identify themselves and inviting them to the podium.

The nuns’ lawsuit against the Obama administration over the so-called contraceptive mandate went to the the Supreme Court, which didn’t make a final determination.

“Congratulations, you sort of just won a lawsuit,” Trump said jokingly to the two nuns. “That’s a good way of doing that. I want you to know that your long ordeal will soon be over.”

The president’s executive order states that the administration’s policy is to protect religious liberty. It directs the Internal Revenue Service to use maximum discretion to alleviate the law governing churches and partisan politics, known as the Johnson Amendment. And it offers regulatory relief for religious objectors to Obamacare rules.

“With this executive order, we are ending the attacks on your religious liberty and we are proudly reaffirming America’s leadership role as a nation that protects religious freedom for everyone,” Trump said.

Trump held the event, attended by Christian, Jewish, and Muslim clergy from across the country, on the National Day of Prayer.

Trump focused his remarks on rolling back 1954’s Johnson Amendment, named for Sen. Lyndon Johnson, the Texas Democrat who would become president nine years later. The law threatens churches, religious institutions, and other nonprofits with revocation by the IRS of their tax-exempt status if they talk partisan politics.

James Dobson, an iconic Christian broadcaster who founded the traditional values group Focus on the Family, was among faith leaders attending the Rose Garden event.

“How could I not be satisfied? I mean, we have been struggling with that Johnson Amendment since I’ve been in radio, which is 40 years,” Dobson told The Daily Siganal.

He also said the Obama administration sued his current organization, Family Talk, over Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate.

“When that mandate came down, I wrote the president [Obama] saying I cannot comply. ‘You must come get me, because we’ll close our doors,’” Dobson said. “We’ve been in a lawsuit ever since, and it went to the 10th Circuit and was headed for the Supreme Court. That goes away today. Yes, I’m happy about it.”

However, Greg Baylor, senior counsel with the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, said the order leaves Trump’s campaign promises “unfulfilled” and is “disappointingly vague.” In a formal statement, Baylor said:

A pledge to ‘provide regulatory relief’ is disappointingly vague, especially given the long existence of an obvious means of solving the problem: crafting an exemption that protects all those who sincerely object on religious and moral grounds so that they can continue to serve their communities and the most vulnerable among them. We encourage the administration to pursue that course of action and to do so promptly so that it can resolve the dozens of cases still pending against it.

During his Rose Garden remarks, Trump invoked the civil rights icon and pastor Martin Luther King Jr. and the history of the African-American church, as well as the larger Judeo-Christian tradition, as reason to honor the role of religion in America’s politics.

“This financial threat against the faith community is over,” Trump said. “No one should be censoring sermons or targeting pastors. … America has a rich tradition of social change beginning in our pews and pulpits.”

Trump also heralded the Founding Fathers’ vision as evidence of the intended role of religion in public life:

Freedom is not a gift from government. Freedom is a gift from God. It was Thomas Jefferson who said the God who gave us life gave us liberty. Our Founding Fathers believed religious liberty was so important that they enshrined it in the very First Amendment in our great and beloved Constitution.

Yet for too long, the federal government has used the power of the state as a weapon against people of faith, bullying and even punishing Americans for following their religious beliefs.

The draft of the executive order that leaked earlier this year, however, also protected the right of religious organizations to align staffing decisions with their missions. And it would have prevented the federal government from discriminating against its employees or contractors for practicing their religious beliefs.

Trump “caved” on these and other provisions in the draft order, said Ryan T. Anderson, a senior research fellow with The Heritage Foundation whose studies include religious liberty. In a commentary for The Daily Signal, Anderson wrote of the president:

Back in February, he caved to the protests of liberal special interest groups as he declined to issue an executive order on religious liberty that had been leaked to hostile press. And earlier today, he issued an executive order on ‘free speech and religious liberty’ that does not address the major threats to religious liberty in the United States today.

Today’s executive order is woefully inadequate. Trump campaigned promising Americans that he would protect their religious liberty rights and correct the violations that took place during the previous administration.

Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, was among those attending the Rose Garden event. Nance told The Daily Signal she was happy with the outcome.

“We were very pleased with what we’ve seen so far. It’s a great first step,” Nance said. “There are still things left to do. We were pleased to be here today. What a beautiful day. This is a great day for religious liberty.” (For more from the author of “Trump: ‘No One Should Be Censoring Sermons or Targeting Pastors'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fact Check: Trump’s 100-Day Low Approval Ratings

While President Trump has had a strong first 100 days in office, critics point to his low approval ratings. An AOL headline blares, “Trump has lowest approval rating in history after 100 days in office.” Trump denounces his approval polls as fake news, citing bias.

According to the left-leaning political and elections site FiveThirtyEight, Trump’s approval ratings averaged 42 percent at the end of his first 100 days in office. His disapproval ratings averaged 52 percent.

Mind you, these polls wrongly predicted Hillary Clinton would win the election. FiveThirtyEight’s averaging of polls gave Trump only a 1-in-3 chance of winning. He beat his polling averages by 2 to 3 points in swing states. He beat them by even more in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

So how can we trust the polls now that say the president’s so unpopular?

Most Polling Companies Lean to the Left

Let’s look at the most accurate polling company today, one that is not biased to the left. Rasmussen consistently shows Trump with the highest approval ratings. In fact, in one snapshot of polls from February, Rasmussen showed Trump 6 points higher than the next closest poll, 55 percent to 49 percent.

The former is the same approval rating former President Bill Clinton had after 100 days in office. Yet no one is talking about this. Instead, they cite Gallup far more often.

Larger Sampling of Democrats Polled

Since most of the polling companies lean to the left, it is not surprising to find they often include more Democrats than Republicans in samplings.

Last June, a Reuters presidential poll surveyed 52 percent Democrats and 35 percent Republicans. The rest were Independents or other. Reuters polled almost 33 percent more Democrats than Republicans. Naturally, the poll results showed Clinton far ahead, 47 percent to 33 percent.

Clever Wording

Reuters/IPSOS was caught last July changing a poll’s wording to favor Clinton. After Trump pulled ahead of her in a July poll, Reuters/IPSOS eliminated the word “Neither” from the Neither/Other choice. That change gave Clinton a 7-point bounce.

Just a Snapshot

While Trump’s approval rating may have dipped in late April, that is just one snapshot in time. It was much higher in prior months. Rasmussen conducted several polls since Trump entered office. Several showed over 50 percent approval.

Likely Voters v. Registered Voters v. Adults

Trump generally had the lowest approval ratings in polls of adults. In polls that interviewed registered voters or likely voters, he tended to have the highest approval ratings. Since likely voters decide elections, why would a polling company choose to interview adults? Some suspect this is done on purpose to skew the results against the GOP.

In fact, if polling companies wanted to be really accurate, they would survey “likely likely voters.” These are voters who have not just voted in one election in recent years, but several in a row. That demographic tends to favor the GOP even more.

Devil’s Advocate: What if the Low Approval Ratings are Valid?

If there is some truth to Trump’s low approval ratings, it may be due to — ironically — his high level of success. He’s cracked down on illegal immigration, the travel ban, intervening in Syria and repealing Obamacare — all fairly controversial positions.

The low ratings could also be due to the spread of social media. It has made it easy to broadcast biased mainstream media articles everywhere. People who normally wouldn’t read The New York Times can’t help but see its articles in their Facebook news feed.

But it Doesn’t Matter Anyway

FiveThirtyEight admits that approval ratings “do a relatively poor job of forecasting the election results.” Based on previous presidents’ experiences, it is too early to predict how Trump’s presidency will go.

Trump’s approval ratings at the beginning of his first 100 days in office started out almost the same as former presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Reagan went on to become a very popular president. Both won reelection. FiveThirtyEight points out, “Trump is not very popular, but he’s also no more unpopular than Barack Obama was for much of his presidency.”

Democrats can gloat all they want about Trump’s low approval ratings, but not only are they probably meaningless, they could fool the party into thinking it’ll easily beat Trump in 2020. They could find themselves repeating last year’s surprise loss. (For more from the author of “Fact Check: Trump’s 100-Day Low Approval Ratings” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Expected to Unveil Massive New Protections for Religious Freedom Thursday

A leaked copy of a draft executive order titled “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” obtained by The Investigative Fund and The Nation, reveals sweeping plans by the Trump administration . . .

The four-page draft order, a copy of which is currently circulating among federal staff and advocacy organizations, construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers “any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations,” and protects “religious freedom” in every walk of life: “when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.”

The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act. The White House did not respond to requests for comment, but when asked Monday about whether a religious freedom executive order was in the works, White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters, “I’m not getting ahead of the executive orders that we may or may not issue. There is a lot of executive orders, a lot of things that the president has talked about and will continue to fulfill, but we have nothing on that front now.”

Language in the draft document specifically protects the tax-exempt status of any organization that “believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.”

[Legal experts described the] breadth of the draft order . . . as “sweeping” and “staggering” . . . (Read more from “Trump Expected to Unveil Massive New Protections for Religious Freedom Thursday” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Omnibus Violates Trump Promises With Bad Immigration Provisions

If the November election was analogous to conservatives recovering possession of the ball, this pending budget bill is the moment the president throws an interception. Unless, of course, he does the right thing and vetoes it.

Not only does this bill fund liberal priorities, including refugee resettlement, Obama’s amnesty, and sanctuary cities, it contains a number of odious provisions that weaken current law on immigration. We have already observed how this bill essentially weakens Trump’s leverage to even commence construction on a border wall while funding border security in other countries. However, there are a number of additional provisions that violate the president’s core campaign promises as well.

MORE IMMIGRATION FROM AFGHANISTAN

While fully funding the refugee program and failing to codify Trump’s executive order against judicial tyranny, this bill actually increases immigration from the Middle East. Sec. 7083 (p. 1447) increases the number of Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) for Afghanis by 2,500 – from 8,500 to 11,000. As we’ve written before, this has been a priority of liberal Republicans and Democrat in the Senate, even though we’ve had vetting problems with the families of interpreters and contractors. Remember, the Bowling Green bomb-plotters were Iraqi SIVs who were caught trying to blow up the soldiers they worked for.

Congress already added an additional 3,000 visas for these individuals plus an unlimited number for family members in the FY 2016 NDAA. Most of those visas have not even been issued yet. So why would Congress open the floodgates for even more visas at a cost of several hundred million dollars? Remember, SIV recipients are treated like refugees and are immediately eligible for all social entitlement and resettlement programs. They are also permitted to bring in an unlimited number of spouses and children. In recent years, the program has been expanded for other support members beyond interpreters or those helping our soldiers on the front lines – and this program is in addition to a separate visa program specifically for interpreters. Moreover, after 15 years of failure in Afghanistan, we are fighting for a corrupt Sharia government. Now we have nothing to show for it but more immigrants who, by and large, are strict adherents to Sharia.

Moreover, with the endless flow of immigration from the Middle East, why wouldn’t they at least cut other areas of immigration, such as the Syrian refugees who are arriving in the hundreds every month? Since Trump is apparently refusing to use the budget to codify his order for a moratorium from the Middle East, is it too much to ask that he not increase immigration?

GUTS 287G COOPERATION WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

One of the cornerstones of interior enforcement is the 287g program, which allows federal immigration officials to work with local law enforcement to apprehend illegal aliens. Obama terminated the program as part of his illegal amnesty, but Trump reinstated it by executive order. Sec. 210 (p. 684) of the omnibus prohibits these agreements if the DHS Inspector General determines that the terms of the agreement governing the delegation of authority have been “materially violated.” This provision was clearly inserted by Democrats who feel there might be an avenue through which they can get the IG to throw cold water on this vital program.

CREATES STATE DEPARTMENT SLUSH FUND FOR LIBERAL BUREAUCRATS TO BRING IN MORE REFUGEES

Section 7081 (p. 1443) of the omnibus essentially creates a slush fund for the Bureau of Consular Affairs within the State Department to use the fees it collects from visas as a permanent funding source from year to year.

While a number of agencies are somewhat “self-funded” by their own administration of fees, those funds are either deposited directly into the general treasury or are credited against the amount of appropriations they receive. For example, if an agency receives $50 million in appropriations but collects $20 million in fees, it can only draw $30 million from the Treasury. Moreover, it can’t use the funds from year to year. This is necessary so that agencies are fully controlled by Congress for every fiscal year rather than becoming rogue entities that self-fund outside Article I powers.

This bill, on the other hand, gives the State Department a full slush fund, in addition to appropriations, from which the funds can be transferred for other purposes.

In a normal administration, one would assume that the White House would control the direction of the agencies. But we have already seen that the White House is either unwilling or unable to stop the State Department from bringing in 900 refugees a week (which is not even required by the lawless courts). Clearly, the same personnel from Obama’s administration remain in place. Thanks to this provision in the omnibus, there will be a new revenue incentive for the agency to bring in as many visas as possible and use the extra funds to push the limits on refugee resettlement and other visa categories.

Thus, at the same time Congress is rescinding funds for the border wall, it is offering an extra slush fund with more flexibility to bring in even more refugees. This bill contains several other provisions that direct policy, even though it’s a spending bill — but not any conservative priorities.

THE SOFT BIGOTRY OF LOW EXPECTATIONS

Amazingly, OMB director Mick Mulvaney praised the budget and excused the problems by asking rhetorically, “Can you imagine how different this bill is from what the bill that President Obama would have signed back in September?”

This is part of a disturbing trend I’m noticing among some conservatives, in which they have such low expectations for success that they excuse away every act of political adultery by Trump and congressional Republicans by comparing it to what we would have gotten with Obama or Hillary. There is no sense of context, proportionality, and expectations in these excuses. (See my full podcast on realistic expectations vs. absurd excuses). Taking this reasoning to its logical conclusion, one could excuse away a Republican issuing amnesty by suggesting the Democrat would have amnestied more illegals. Or “at least the Republican president only appointed five Kerry people to foreign policy positions as opposed to 10.”

The reality is there is no need or excuse for any of this. We are not asking the president to balance the budget or reform entitlements in 100 days. We are asking him merely not to pursue some of the most egregious and downright illegal policies of the Obama administration. The Iran deal, defending the contraception mandate in court, issuing Obama’s amnesty, and bailing out insurers are all illegal policies that can be terminated … simply by doing nothing. To actively continue and even champion those policies is an act of political adultery that shouting “Gorsuch!” or “Keystone pipeline!” fails to ameliorate. To sign a budget bill codifying these priorities while he fails to demand that Congress address his priorities that have been illegally assailed by the courts casts doubt on his campaign promises.

Amazingly, as it relates to the budget, there is not much room even to use “but Obama would have been worse” as an excuse. It’s hard to see how the bill would have been significantly worse had Democrats won the election.

actually, not really. and i don’t mean that snarkily. maybe modestly different. but not THAT different. https://t.co/2KY2hKoS4P

(For more from the author of “Omnibus Violates Trump Promises With Bad Immigration Provisions” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Salon’s Fake News: Trump Supposedly Said the Constitution Is ‘Really a Bad Thing for the Country’

The left-wing media site Salon posted an article with the headline blaring: “Donald Trump doesn’t like the ‘archaic’ Constitution: ‘It’s really a bad thing for the country.’” Other liberal sites said the same thing. It was the classic gotcha article: The man who says he’s a conservative wants to trash the Constitution! Haha, say the liberals.

The only problem: he didn’t say that.

What Trump Didn’t Say, and What He Did

Salon did the easiest thing possible — took phrases out of Trump’s Fox News interview. In fact, the interview posted with the article contradicts it.

One hint that the liberal press misquoted the president? The word “constitution” doesn’t even appear in the interview. Not even once.

So what was Trump talking about? Fox News’s Martha MacCallum asks him about his political philosophy. Trump responds that he’s “not really an ideologue.” He’s “a person of common sense.” He gets things done, he says. “I understand what has to be done, I get things done I’ve always been a closer. We don’t have a lot of closers in politics and I understand why.”

Then comes the quote that the mainstream media jumped on. “It’s a very rough system, it’s an archaic system,” he says. The Constitution? No. He continues:

You look at the rules of the Senate, even the rules of the House. The rules of the Senate, some of the things you have to go through. It’s really a bad thing for the country. In my opinion, they are archaic rules. Maybe, at some point, we’re going to have to take those rules on. For the good of the nation, things are going to have to be different. You can’t go through a process like this. It’s not fair, it forces you to make bad decisions.

What’s He Upset About?

Does Trump reject the Constitution in the interview? No, he never even mentions it. What’s he upset about? The rules of Congress, especially the Senate. He thinks those rules are “archaic.”

Trump may be flustered working with Congress, but he hasn’t deserted our system of checks and balances to become a dictator.

The fake news piece had 17,500 Facebook shares at the time this article went to publication. There has been no retraction or correction. Will Google push it down in search results? Will Facebook flag it as fake news? Probably not. (For more from the author of “Salon’s Fake News: Trump Supposedly Said the Constitution Is ‘Really a Bad Thing for the Country'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lead Dem Demands Trump Withdraw Army Secretary Pick Over ‘Homophobia and Transphobia’

The No. 2 Democrat in the U.S. House is calling for the withdrawal of President Trump’s nominee for Army secretary over his “clear record of homophobia and transphobia.”

Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, Maryland, issued a statement on Monday strongly urging Trump to pick someone other than Mark Green, a Tennessee state lawmaker and former Army flight surgeon. Hoyer was adding his voice to LGBT advocates and other lawmakers who have assailed Green for calling transgenderism a “disease” and suggesting the Tennessee governor could refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Green has also come under fire for alleged anti-Muslim rhetoric, including a 2013 Twitter message in which he referred to then-President Obama as “B Hussein Obama” and a statement made during a political meeting last year, that Tennessee “will not tolerate” the “teaching [of] the pillars of Islam.” Hoyer’s statement came on the same day Muslim civil rights group Muslim Advocates condemned Green.

“The civilian leaders the President selects to oversee our military set the tone for the men and women of our Armed Forces and how they are expected to behave,” Hoyer’s statement reads.

“Appointing someone with a clear record of homophobia and transphobia, who has made disgusting statements demeaning toward groups of Americans, would send the absolute wrong signal about the values for which our military service members are risking their lives. (Read more from “Lead Dem Demands Trump Withdraw Army Secretary Pick Over ‘Homophobia and Transphobia” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Blame Congress for Trump’s 100-Day Bust

Friday morning, the House of Representatives easily passed a one-week continuing resolution to avoid a partial government shutdown. The Senate followed suit on the bill, and in so doing proved the utter futility of Republican control of Congress in the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency.

While the media will hang the apparent lack of Trump’s legislative accomplishments on the necks of the administration, ultimately this is not a failure of the executive branch. In this constitutional republic, it is Congress that holds the legislative power; the House of Representatives and Senate make the laws. They are responsible for the legislative policy of the Trump administration, and they’ve blown the first 100 days.

The failed negotiations over the spending bill Congress must now take up next week is the capstone on congressional Republican incompetence and the failed leadership of Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.. The Republican Party has not received a single concession from the Democrats to implement any of President Trump’s agenda … and they will not.

Democrats succeeded in bullying the GOP, threatening a government shutdown over border-wall funding and other “poison pill” riders.

“Our position has been clear, and it’s nothing new: no poison pill riders. The sooner we can resolve this issue, the quicker we can have an agreement on appropriations for 2017, so I object,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor Thursday. Schumer prevented the Senate from automatically approving the short-term continuing resolution on grounds that changes to environmental regulations and Dodd-Frank protections are unacceptable.

While the Democrats fight to protect every inch of the leviathan federal government they explicitly support, the Republicans – who pretend to seek to put up a fight on the campaign trail – roll over once they have to take a tough vote.

Observe what has become of the Republican agenda, as timid or cowardly GOP members refuse to fight for smaller government.

Obamacare repeal? That promise was broken and now seems delayed indefinitely, as liberal Republicans fight to keep the core parts of the law they like, and are otherwise afraid of making major changes to any entitlements.

Tax reform? The big announcement that came from Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and White House adviser Gary Cohn Wednesday left out the important details, as both administration officials had nothing but vague answers for reporters and essentially said Congress is “working on it.”

Build the wall? Republicans capitulated after Democrats’ threats to shut down the government.

Speaking of government spending, where is the budget? Where is the congressional action on President Trump’s skinny budget? Why is a Republican-controlled Congress still using soft continuing resolutions to pass short-term spending in place of hard budgets and a return to separate appropriations bills? That’s another broken promise.

What cuts to government spending are happening? None. Why does Planned Parenthood remain funded? Because Democrats will shut down the government to fight for baby murder. But you won’t hear a single Republican speak in those terms.

And then there are the 127 federal court vacancies that need filling. Where is the Trump administration on nominating conservative judges to fill those vacancies? Where is the Senate on taking those nominations up?

Apologists for Congress’ (lack of) accomplishments in the first 100 will note the regulations that have been repealed under the Congressional Review Act. Trump has signed 13 reversals of Obama administration policies into law.

But were Republicans actually interested in dealing a unifying, single blow to the administrative state, the Senate would take up the REINS Act.

The REINS Act is legislation designed to require regulators to seek congressional approval for their most expensive regulations. It passed the House of Representatives in early January, and since then the Senate hasn’t budged on it. What gives?

President Trump promised to “work hard to get it passed” on the campaign trail.

“I will sign the REINS Act should it reach my desk as President and more importantly I will work hard to get it passed,” Trump previously told American Commitment President Phil Kerpen. “The monstrosity that is the Federal Government with its pages and pages of rules and regulations has been a disaster for the American economy and job growth. The REINS Act is one major step toward getting our government under control.”

Nearly every Republican agrees that regulations need to be scaled back, and to a large degree that has been the focus of the Trump administration’s executive actions. But when it comes to legislation from Congress, Republicans are taking time to repeal several regulations individually instead of pursuing sweeping conservative reforms.

The U.S. Senate has not even been in session for 100 days this year. Including weekends, the Senate has taken 54 days off since the session began in January. What have they done to deserve the vacation time?

Like it or not, voters are going to demand that this Congress make the legislative trains run on time before the 2018 midterm elections. Given the GOP’s failure to keep basic promises so far, with no change on the horizon, what campaign promises can Republicans make in 2018 that voters will believe?

We will soon find out if “at least we’re not Democrats” is enough to get Republicans elected in this country. (For more from the author of “Blame Congress for Trump’s 100-Day Bust” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top 6 Media Meltdowns of Trump’s First 100 Days

The first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency have been filled with outrageous moments in the mainstream media. Some of those moments will make you laugh, some will make you cry, and some will infuriate you. Here are six of the hottest of hot-take fails, outrageous comparisons, outright fabrications, and more from Trump’s first 100 days.

1. LET’S START AT THE BEGINNING, ON INAUGURAL DAY AND NIGHT

LIfeZette had a great compilation of media meltdowns on inauguration day: Matt Lauer being afraid that Trump fans would physically harm Hillary Clinton, Salon saying that Trump was going to “victimize his own voters,” and more. But perhaps my favorite is Paul Krugman, the smarmy New York Times economic columnist, who just needed a safe space.

Inaugural day kicked off the insanity. It really hasn’t ended.

2. TRUMP SIGNS HIS NAME LIKE A NAZI WAR CRIMINAL

Surely this can’t be true, you must be saying to yourself. There is no way that any respected journalism outfit would waste either paper or internet bandwidth with a story like that. Well, you’d be wrong. The Boston Globe published an “ideas” piece that basically asked if you “should care” that Trump signs his name like a Nazi.

Some experts — graphologists, people who have been trained to examine handwriting for markers of personality — were no less harsh. “His signature is this barbed-wire thing that’s into power and control and rigidity,” said Sheila Lowe, a Ventura, Calif., handwriting analyst with more than 40 years of experience in this small field. “It’s closed, it’s not open, it’s not soft at all and it looks like Himmler’s.” As in Heinrich Himmler, head of Adolf Hitler’s SS and the man who established the first official concentration camp at Dachau.

But they totally made it OK by asking if you “should care.”

3. TRUMP’S KIDS ARE JUST THE SAME AS THE HUSSEIN WAR CRIMINAL DUO

If you guessed that this one would involve MSNBC, you’d be right. Almost lost in an orgy of Leftist spin were these two jewels by MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews.

Here’s Rachel – jump to 3:40 in this video.

We have never thought of us as a country where Uday and Qusay [Hussein] get to be ministers of whatever they want, right?

You might think that was obnoxious but was all of it, until you hear Matthews from the week before.

That’s right, because the Trump kids and family follow a long tradition of family members working in a presidential administration, they should be compared to murderous thugs like Uday and Qusay Hussein, the sons of Saddam Hussein.

4. DONALD TRUMP IS CAUSING THE NATION TO LOSE PRECIOUS SLEEP

Here’s another golden one. Lisa Belkin, the “chief national correspondent” for Yahoo News, decided back in March that a think piece on Trump as national bogeyman would be a fun time. She described a dystopian present where Americans were tossing and turning, all because of Trump.

She even went full Nazi Germany, casting the heroes of the piece:

Last night I dreamed we were hiding people in our basement,” says Allentown, Pa., physician Jenni Levy. “Not sure what they were hiding from.”

It continued …

I’m worried about the ‘Anne Franks‘ of Syria, Somalia, Yemen,” says tech industry employee Amanda Silver, who is literally sleepless in Seattle, her hometown.

“I am afraid the democratic process is under attack by a nationalist, far-right, authoritarian leader,” says Lori Rivere Rodrig, who teaches math at a New Jersey high school.

Boo!

5. NOT JUST TRUMP BUT HIS APPOINTMENTS TOO

It was pretty hard to find dirt on the Boy Scout and Trump SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch. But that didn’t stop NPR and a whole host of other organizations from trying. Here’s an original headline for a gotcha piece on Gorsuch.

The story went on to describe a class discussion about employment law that, quite simply, did not happen. Here’s the NPR story. After a rush to publish, without disclosing the conflicts of the source, NPR and other organizations were forced to clarify the story. It ended up not that bad for Gorsuch. Here’s the editors’ note from NPR.

Editors’ note Monday, 12:55 p.m. ET: Since this story was first published, we have added material from another former student and former law clerks of Gorsuch, as well as more information about Jennifer Sisk’s political affiliations. On Tuesday, Gorsuch disputed the allegation himself during his confirmation hearing and explained the lesson he intended to teach.

What were Sisk, the accuser’s, political affiliations?

Sisk, once a staffer for former Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado and the Interior Department during the Obama administration, told NPR that she wrote the letter “so that the proper questions could be asked during his confirmation hearings,” which begin Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Yeah, the allegations came from a professional Democratic operative, and until called out on it, NPR didn’t disclose it.

6. RACHEL MADDOW CHANNELS AL CAPONE’S VAULT

If you were alive during the 1980s, chances are you remember the hype from a not-yet-famous Geraldo Rivera surrounding the unveiling of Al Capone’s secret vault. It was a live prime-time event. Except it was an empty room behind a wall.

Maddow wanted a similar moment all to herself. So she hyped that she had Donald Trump’s tax returns. Except, well, she didn’t. Here, let Greg Gutfeld explain.

That’s right, she had one year’s returns, that Trump probably sent her anonymously himself, that showed he paid a higher tax percentage than almost every president who has released his returns.

Maddow was rightly excoriated for the remarks. Even Geraldo got in on the fun, in a hilarious bit of self-deprecating humor.

Those are just six of hundreds of media moments. Do you remember any others? Tweet me @robeno to let me know of your favorite meltdown. I may cover it in a future article or Facebook live. (For more from the author of “Top 6 Media Meltdowns of Trump’s First 100 Days” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Opens Doors on Oil Exploration, but Deeper Reforms Still Needed

In another move to free up domestic energy supplies, President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday aimed at lifting the Obama administration’s offshore drilling restrictions.

For decades, bad policies have blocked access to America’s abundance of domestic resources, yet America has still managed to be a global energy leader. Trump’s executive order, “Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy,” could unleash further success in the energy sector.

The economic potential sitting just off America’s coasts is enormous. The Outer Continental Shelf is awash with natural resources, containing an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Realizing that potential could create nearly a million American jobs, and the increased energy supplies that would result would put money back into the bank accounts of American families. It would also generate new prospects for investment and job creation, as cheap energy lowers the cost of business operations across all sectors, not just energy.

The federal government has placed various bans on offshore drilling for decades. Last November, the Obama administration’s Department of Interior finalized some of the most restrictive leasing programs to date.

The Interior Department’s final 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program was best known for the areas it placed off limits, rather than what it made available to lease for energy exploration.

It excluded lease sales in the oil-rich Beaufort or Chukchi seas off the coasts of Alaska, as well as areas off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The Interior Department also restricted opportunities in the Gulf of Mexico and the Cook Inlet off south central Alaska.

Critics of Trump’s decision to free up leasing are making the same arguments they’ve made for years: “Oil prices are too low, so the decision won’t spur more oil exploration. Drilling offshore takes too long, so it’s not going to have any immediate impact.”

But those arguments ignore the biggest drivers of investment. Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis were spot on in writing for The Washington Post, “[L]ocal political considerations and the global energy market are likely to influence future exploration far more than an executive order in Washington.”

While Trump’s executive order will open more doors for exploration, it won’t automatically trigger an energy boom. That’s the way it should be.

Oil prices are long-term and, as history has shown, can increase rather quickly. Industry makes investment decisions looking decades into the future, not simply based on short-term projections.

Although it certainly is possible that low oil prices could prohibit offshore production, that’s a decision for the private sector to consider. Businesses are much better equipped and flexible to deal with changing economic circumstances than shortsighted politicians in Washington.

Another battle cry for of those who oppose offshore drilling is: Do we really want to risk another Deepwater Horizon spill?

The Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010, which caused environmental degradation in the Gulf of Mexico, was a rare and isolated incident, not a result of any systemic problem associated with offshore oil and gas operations.

That’s not to say flaws don’t exist in the current system or that improvements can’t be made.

In fact, after Deepwater Horizon, Congress examined the government-imposed offshore liability cap but never implemented any prudent solution.

Current law states that oil or gas companies do not have to pay more than $75 million in liability costs for accidents they cause—no matter how great the damages.

Additional fees can be paid out of a government-mandated trust fund (the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund), which effectively socializes the risk of offshore oil and gas activities.

Congress should reform the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and remove the $75 million liability cap, replacing it with a new system that assesses the risks of offshore oil and gas operations and appropriately assigns those risks to industry operators.

A new approach would accurately assign risk to all offshore operations, including exploratory drilling, production, and tanker movements.

Such a system should also hold operators fully liable for their actions and guard against frivolous lawsuits. It should rely on market-based mechanisms and be built around private insurers and professional risk assessors.

Environmental activists aren’t the only ones opposed to Trump’s executive order. Some members of the tourism industry have also voiced concerns about expanded drilling off the Atlantic.

But the energy industry has worked in perfect harmony with other industries. Just look to the Gulf Coast. Every year, residents of the Gulf come to Morgan City, Louisiana, to celebrate the lifeblood of the region’s economy: seafood and oil.

Morgan City’s Shrimp and Petroleum Festival emphasizes “the unique way in which these two seemingly different industries work hand-in-hand culturally and environmentally in this area of the ‘Cajun Coast.’”

While the Deepwater Horizon spill affected all industries in the Gulf Coast, the majority of seafood and tourism companies supported the oil industry throughout the ordeal.

In fact, in many respects, the spill has strengthened the bond between the oil and seafood industry. Shrimpers and fishers were as vocal as anyone in lifting the offshore drilling ban after the spill.

Drilling off the Atlantic coasts could welcome the same symbiotic relationship, which already exists in the Gulf and in the state of Alaska.

Furthermore, states should collect more royalty revenue for offshore production.

Currently, states receive 50 percent of the revenues generated by onshore oil and natural gas production on federal lands, and Congress should apply this allocation offshore as well.

Drilling off states’ coasts and allowing them a larger share of the royalty revenue would encourage more state involvement in drilling decisions.

Offshore drilling would also promote state and local government participation in allocating funds, helping them to close their deficits, enabling coastal restoration and conservation, and shoring up funds for schools.

Trump’s executive order is a welcome step to increasing access to domestic resources, but the back-and-forth of banning resource exploration and then undoing it is a sign that wholesale reform is necessary.

The politicization of the leasing program and the static central planning process that has stifled a dynamic, constantly changing energy market points to the need for legislative action. It is time for a fundamental reconsideration of how the U.S. manages offshore resource development.

Congress should amend the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Act and get rid of this antiquated, piecemeal leasing approach. (For more from the author of “Trump Opens Doors on Oil Exploration, but Deeper Reforms Still Needed” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Tax Plan Is Brilliant Politics and Even Better Economics

Donald Trump’s tax plan seems to mark a new chapter in his presidency, from floundering around with strange and sometimes scary policies (bombings, border closings, saber rattling) to focusing on what actually matters and what can actually make the difference for the American people and the American economy.

Under Trump’s plan, taxes on corporate profits go from 35% to 15%. They should be zero (like the Bahamas), but this is a good start. Taxes on capital gains go from 23.8% to 20%. Again, it should be zero (as with New Zealand), but it is a start. Rates for all individuals are lowered to three: 10%, 25%, and 35%. The standard deduction for individuals is doubled (politically brilliant). The estate tax and the alternative minimum tax is gone. Popular deductions for charitable giving and mortgage interest are preserved. The hare-brained idea of a “border adjustment tax” is toast.

All of this is wonderful, but the shining light of this plan is the dramatic reduction in taxes on corporate profits. The economics of this are based on a simple but profoundly true insight. Economic growth is the key to a good society. This is where good jobs come from. This is how technology improves. This is what gives everyone a brighter outlook on life. If you can imagine that your tomorrow will be more prosperous and flourishing than today, your life seems to be on track.

Tax Capital, Wreck Prosperity

Where does economic growth come from? For decades dating back perhaps a hundred-plus years, people imagined that it could come from government programs and policy manipulation. Surely there are some levers somewhere in the center of power that can cause this thing we call economic growth. We just need solid experts with power, resources, and intelligence to manage the system.

This turns out to be entirely wrong. It hasn’t worked. Since 2008, government has tried to mastermind an economic recovery. It has floundered. We are coming up on a full decade of this nonsense with economic growth barely crawling along. We are surviving, not thriving, and income growth, capital formation, and entrepreneurial opportunity restricted and punished at every turn.

The Trump tax plan is rooted in a much better idea. Economic growth must come from the private sector. It must come from investment in private capital. The owners of this capital who are doing well and earn profits should be allowed to keep them and invest them. This creates new job opportunities. It allows for more complex production strategies. It expands the division of labor.

The crucial institution here is capital. Sorry, anti-capitalists. It’s just true. Capital can be defined as the produced goods for production, not consumption. It is making things for the purpose of making other things. Think about it. Without capital, you can still have markets, creativity, hard work, enterprise. But so long as you have an absence of capital, you are forever floundering around just working to make and sell things for consumption. This is called living hand to mouth.

Without capital, and the private ownership of capital, and security over your property rights, you can’t have economic growth. You can’t have complex production. You can’t raise wages. You can’t live a better life. Every tax on capital, capital formation, capital accumulation, and business profit reduces the security of property rights over capital. This is a sure way to attack economic growth at its source.

And this is precisely what American policy has done. The rest of the world has been wising up about this, reducing taxes on capital for the last 15 years. But the US has languished in the mythology of the past, regarding capital not as a font of prosperity but rather a fund of stagnant resources to be pillaged by planners in government. It is not surprising that this strategy results in slow growth and even permanent recession.

What This Can Do for Growth

There is so much pent-up energy in this country. This tax cut will unleash it.

I have no regression to present to you but this much I can say out of experience and intuition. If this tax plan goes through, the entire class of entrepreneurs, investors, and merchants will receiving a loud signal: this country is safe for you to realize your dreams and make the dreams of others come true.

It wouldn’t surprise me to see GDP growth go from an anemic 1-2% to reach 4% and higher in one year. There is so much pent-up energy in this country. This tax cut will unleash it. And think what it means for the next recession or financial crisis. It prepares the entire country to weather such an event better than we otherwise would.

The beauty of unleashing the power of private capital is that the brilliant results will always be surprising. We don’t know what kind of experimentation in investment and business expansion this will create. This is the nature of a capitalist economy rooted in the freedom of enterprise. It defies our every expectation. No model can forecast with precision the range of results here. We only know that good things will come.

Now, of course, the opponents will talk of the deficit and the national debt. What about the lost revenue? The problem is that every revenue forecast is based on a static model. But an economy rooted in capital formation is not a static one. It is entirely possible that new profits and business expansion will produce even more revenue, even if it is taxed at a lower rate.

If you want to cut the deficit, there is only one way: cut spending. I see no evidence that either party wants to do this. Too bad. This should change. But it is both economically stupid and morally unsound to attempt to balance the budget on the backs of taxpayers. Letting people keep more of what they earn is the right thing to do, regardless of government’s fiscal problems.

In the meantime, these pious incantations of the word “deficit, deficit, deficit,” should be seen for what they are: excuses to continue to loot people of their just earnings.

The Politics of It

Already the opponents of this plan are kvetching in the predictable way. This is a tax cut for the rich! Well, yes, and that’s good. Rich capitalists — sorry for yet another hard truth — are society’s benefactors.

But you know why this line of attack isn’t going to work this time? Take a look at the standard deduction change. It is doubled. Not a single middle-class taxpayer is unaware of what this means. This is because they are profoundly aware of how the tax system works. If you take the standard deduction from $6,200 to $15,000, that means people are going to keep far more of their own money. There is not a single taxpayer in this country who will not welcome that.

This is why it strikes me as crazy for Democrats to inveigh against this plan. Doing so only cements their reputation as the party of pillage. Do they really want the United States to be outcompeted by every other nation in the OECD? What they should do is rally behind this, forgetting all the ridiculous pieties about the deficit and the rich and so on. Do they favor the interests of the American people are not?

It’s also fantastic politics to retain the deductions for charitable giving and mortgage interest. These are popular for a reason. They are two of the only ways that average people can save on their tax bill. It always pained me when the GOP would propose a “flat tax” that eliminated these provisions. People are very aware: taking away an existing tax break is a terrible foreshadowing of bad things to come. So this Trump plan dispenses with all that. Good.

As for compliance costs of the current system, the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax will do worlds of good.

What I love most about this plan is its real-world economic foundation. It embraces a truth that so many want to avoid. If you want jobs, rising wages, and economic growth, you have to stop the war on capital. You have to go the other way. You need to celebrate capital and allow rewards to flow to those who are driving forward economic progress.

It’s a simple but brilliant point. Finally, we’ve got a tax proposal that embraces it. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Tax Plan Is Brilliant Politics and Even Better Economics” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.