Posts

Microsoft, Amazon and Expedia Collude with Washington State to Get Another Activist Court to Strike down Trump Refugee Ban

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Darrell Etherington. Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced Monday that he’s filing suit in federal court against Trump, the Department of Homeland Security and select senior Trump administration officials, seeking a declaration that key portions of Trump’s Executive Order on immigration be declared unconstitutional. Alongside the lawsuit, Washington-based tech companies Amazon and Expedia are filing supporting declarations that outline how the order is negatively impacting their business, and their employees.

The Attorney General’s suit will argue that the order violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection to all, and the right of individuals to due process. It also claims that it’s in contravention of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, and that it violates the Establishment Clause, which prevents creation of laws that establish an official state religion, or favor one over another.

The declarations provided by Amazon and Expedia seem to focus on the potential economic impact of the executive order, rather than on its constitutional validity or lack thereof. . .

Microsoft is also supporting the Washington Attorney General’s lawsuit against the executive order with a similar declaration to those provided by Amazon and Expedia, Reuters reports. (Read more from “Microsoft, Amazon and Expedia Collude with Washington State to Get Another Activist Court to Strike down Trump Refugee Ban” HERE)

________________________________________

Trump Reportedly Set to Sign Order Overhauling High-Tech Visa Program Used by Microsoft, Amazon

By Ashley Stewart. President Donald Trump on Monday will reportedly sign an executive order to overhaul the federal program that helps Microsoft, Amazon and many Puget Sound-area technology companies bring in highly skilled workers from around the world when they can’t fill job locally.

The overhaul, reported by Bloomberg, would be the latest in a series of Trump orders to restrict the U.S. immigration system. The draft proposal targets H-1B visas – which allows employers to bring in foreign workers to fill specialized U.S. jobs when they can’t find local workers with appropriate skills – and other visa programs, including the L-1 transfer visas.

“Our country’s immigration policies should be designed and implemented to serve, first and foremost, the U.S. national interest,” the draft proposal said, according to Bloomberg. “Visa programs for foreign workers … should be administered in a manner that protects the civil rights of American workers and current lawful residents, and that prioritizes the protection of American workers – our forgotten working people – and the jobs they hold.” (Read more from “Trump Reportedly Set to Sign Order Overhauling High-Tech Visa Program Used by Microsoft, Amazon” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Fires Acting AG for Refusing to Defend Travel Ban

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates on Monday just hours after she defied him by refusing to have the Justice Department defend his controversial executive order blocking people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.

The White House acted swiftly, issuing a statement declaring that Yates, who was appointed by former President Obama, had “betrayed” the U.S. government.

Trump selected Dana Boente, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to replace Yates until his attorney general nominee, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), is confirmed by the Senate. That vote could occur this week.

“Ms. Yates is an Obama administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration,” the White House said in a statement. “It is time to get serious about protecting our country.”

The decision to ax Yates capped off a turbulent day in which the Trump administration was forced to confront mounting opposition to its order, which bars all refugees for four months and bans citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Sudan and Yemen from entering the U.S. for at least 90 days. (Read more from “Trump Fires Acting AG for Refusing to Defend Travel Ban” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Republican Lawmakers Say About Trump’s Order on Refugees

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republicans in Congress had mixed reactions in the immediate wake of President Donald Trump’s executive order Friday stopping individuals from seven countries where Islamist terrorists operate from entering the country for 90 days.

Some GOP lawmakers, such as Sens. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., expressed concerns about who the order targeted and how it was implemented—but without the force of Democrats’ widespread opposition. The order also temporarily halts entry of refugees.

“The president is right to focus attention on the obvious fact that borders matter,” Sasse said in a statement issued Saturday. “At the same time, while not technically a Muslim ban, this order is too broad.”

Rubio and Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., released a joint statement Sunday, saying they support vetting those who want to enter the country, but have qualms.

“After reviewing the recent executive orders, it is clear to us that some of what is being said and reported about the scope and implications of these measures is misleading,” Rubio and Scott said. “However, it is also clear that the manner in which these measures were crafted and implemented have greatly contributed to the confusion, anxiety, and uncertainty of the last few days.”

Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., is one conservative lawmaker who supports Trump’s action.

“If you follow the facts and the figures, you get a much different story than what the press is talking about,” Brat said in a phone interview with The Daily Signal. Brat said the executive order is a “short-run vetting of migrants from seven countries that were chosen by the Obama administration and by intelligence officials because these seven countries are known to fund and train and export terror.”

Countries affected by the temporary travel ban are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.

Trump’s executive order also indefinitely pauses the entry of Syrian refugees into the United States, a practice his predecessor, Barack Obama, had accelerated.

In 2015, Obama also imposed restrictions on people who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011, as CNN and others reported.

The Obama administration later added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list to address what it called “the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters,” CNN reported.

Brat said that although some object to Trump’s executive order and argue that individuals from these countries have not committed acts of terror, the executive order is well warranted.

Intelligence officials support further review of individuals traveling from the seven countries, the Virginia Republican said.

“Go ask the intelligence officers if there’s been funding streamed to terrorist groups from these countries, if there’s been training and folks coming in and out of those counties, and they’re actually making their way here hoping to spread terror. And the answer will be a 100 percent yes,” Brat said.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said the executive order is Trump’s way of making good on his campaign promises.

“[Trump] campaigned on this, he ran on this, and now he is getting to implement this,” Jordan said in an interview Monday morning with Bob Frantz, host of the radio show “The Answer” on WHK-AM, a Cleveland radio station.

Jordan, former chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, said he does not anticipate the order to provoke more violence from terrorists, and that Trump’s move “makes sense.” He said:

This idea that somehow this will make the terrorists mad, my guess is they’re already mad based on what they’ve done to our country, what they’ve done around the world. So let’s focus on common sense. … If you’re going to let [citizens of those nations] in here, you need to make sure that you have thoroughly checked them out and that they are not part of some sort of terrorist organization. I think that makes sense. Let’s make sure we do it right.

Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., also said Trump is keeping campaign promises, but acknowledged that the order could have been executed more seamlessly.

“President Trump and his administration have been taking steps to fulfill his campaign promises,” Isakson said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal, “and he’s right that we need to strengthen our national security and improve the vetting process for people coming into our country.”

While the intentions were good, Isakson said, the administration should make sure the order doesn’t hurt “law-abiding Americans.”

“I hope that President Trump will consult with the national security team he has assembled with the advice and consent of the Senate, so that security measures are properly implemented and do not infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans,” Isakson said.

Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C., chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said the executive order is “to ensure the safety of every American” but must be tempered with compassion. He voiced support for Trump’s move to “slow things down.”

“We have always been a compassionate nation, and will continue to be a beacon of hope and freedom for the world,” Walker said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal, adding:

The refugee resettlement program is important in keeping with that tradition. But, we also have an obligation to ensure the safety of every American. Top national security officials have admitted that the government is unable to fully vet refugees. We need to slow things down and examine the flaws in the system so that it can be strengthened.

Walker said the Trump administration should, however, quickly clarify any ambiguities.

“The language of the order should not apply to legal, permanent residents of the United States, and if it is being enforced in any other way, the administration should step in swiftly to clarify,” Walker said.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, said in a prepared statement Monday that Trump is using the powers vested in him by Congress and the Constitution.

“The president is acting temporarily and prudently to give his administration and Congress the much-needed time to properly evaluate the refugee program and reform it to ensure that it both helps legitimate refugees and ensures the safety of the American people,” Gohmert said.

Trump’s order is not bias, Gohmert said, but a constitutional vehicle to protect Americans.

“With this president’s action to pause refugee admissions, not based on their religion but on whether there is adequate information to determine if they are a threat, he is constitutionally acting to protect Americans,” Gohmert said.

For other Republican lawmakers, however, the executive order has become a point of contention with the newly inaugurated president.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., released a joint statement Sunday saying the order could become counterproductive in the fight against terrorism.

“It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump’s executive order was not properly vetted,” McCain and Graham said. “We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security.”

Unlike McCain and Graham, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., said the temporary ban is justified and necessary.

“America welcomes Muslims from 190 countries and temporarily bans all individuals from seven countries,” Buck said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal. “The president’s executive order is a temporary effort that addresses a serious issue with terrorist hot spots.” (For more from the author of “What Republican Lawmakers Say About Trump’s Order on Refugees” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Likely to Name 1 of These 2 Judges to Supreme Court

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump returns to prime time Tuesday for the biggest announcement of his presidency so far. He will reveal at 8 p.m. EST his pick for the Supreme Court, widely reported to be one of two federal appeals court judges—Neil Gorsuch or Thomas Hardiman.

Some reports suggest two other appeals court judges, William Pryor and Diane Sykes, still could be in contention.

However, neither of those judges won unanimous confirmation to their current posts. The Senate confirmed Gorsuch by a voice vote in July 2006 and confirmed Hardiman 95-0 in March 2007.

170130_GorsuchHardiman

Unanimous confirmation for past judgeships, however, isn’t likely to prevent Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., from trying to block the nominee, said Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network.

“It will be hard to say the nominee is out of the mainstream if Schumer has already voted for him,” Severino told The Daily Signal. “But Trump could renominate Merrick Garland and the Democrats would reflexively block it.”

Some Democrats already have threatened to filibuster Trump’s nominee, whoever he or she is.

President Barack Obama nominated Garland, chief judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to fill the vacancy left after the Feb. 13 death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Senate Republicans refused to advance the nomination in an election year.

It’s not likely Trump will have a high court nominee approved by April, when the Supreme Court probably will hear its last set of cases for the year, said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice.

“With [Supreme Court Justices] Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, it took about three months,” Levey told The Daily Signal. “I supported stopping the Garland nomination, but the one thing Republicans can’t do is hurry this, or act as if filling the vacancy is urgent. I don’t think the Democrats can filibuster, but they will have to play to their base’s anger over Garland.”

Gorsuch ultimately has a more in-depth history of writing with regard to constitutional rights, separation of powers, and the role of judges, said John Malcolm, director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

“It will still be a fight, but not be as much of a knock-down, drag-out fight as if [Trump] had chosen Bill Pryor,” Malcolm told The Daily Signal. “Both would be superb Supreme Court justices, and I hope either gets confirmed.”

Here’s a look at the record of Trump’s potential nominees:

Backgrounds

Gorsuch, 49, was appointed by President George W. Bush as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Colorado.

Before that, Gorsuch was a deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department. The Harvard Law School graduate clerked for both current Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and former Justice Byron White.

Bush appointed Hardiman to the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Pennsylvania. That’s the same court that Trump’s sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, serves on.

Hardiman, 51, previously was a federal district judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, a position confirmed by a voice vote of the Senate in October 2003. He received his law degree at Georgetown University.

On Gun Ownership

A Judicial Crisis Network brief noted Gorsuch’s decision in the case of United States v. Games-Perez, where the appeals judge wrote that “there is a long tradition of widespread gun ownership by private individuals in this country.” He added: “The Supreme Court has held the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”

For his part, Hardiman rejected a challenge to a law barring felons from owning firearms.

But Hardiman generally has been strong on the Second Amendment.

In the case of Drake v. Filko, Hardiman wrote the dissenting opinion in a ruling upholding a New Jersey law requiring residents have a “justifiable need” to obtain a permit to carry a gun. Citing Supreme Court decisions upholding the Second Amendment, he wrote: “States may not seek to reduce the danger by curtailing the right itself.”

On Religious Freedom

Gorsuch ruled in two major religious liberty cases that came before the 10th Circuit challenging the Obamacare mandate that employers pay for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs for employees, siding with Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor in the two cases.

In a lower-profile case, Yellowbear v. Lampert, Gorsuch ruled in favor of an inmate who said prison officials denied his religious freedom by not accommodating his Native American faith.

In one case, Hardiman wrote the dissenting opinion in favor of a mother and her kindergartener son, who was prohibited from using the Bible as part of a show and tell at school. He wrote that the prohibition “plainly constituted” discrimination based on the family’s viewpoint.

On Free Speech

Gorsuch issued a decision against a Colorado campaign finance law, determining that it unconstitutionally permitted major party donors to make two contributions per election cycle, while limiting minor party candidates to receive just one donation per election cycle. There is “something distinct, different, and more problematic afoot,” he wrote, “when the government selectively infringes on a fundamental right.”

Hardiman ruled against a student’s right to wear a bracelet that said “I [heart] boobies” during a breast cancer awareness campaign at his middle school. He described the case as “close,” but said it “would seem to fall into a gray area between speech that is plainly lewd and merely indecorous.”

In the case of NAACP v. City of Philadelphia, Hardiman ruled that Philadelphia’s ban on noncommercial advertisements at the city’s airport violated free speech rights.

Concerning campaign finance, Hardiman wrote the opinion striking down a Philadelphia law that barred police officers from contributing to the police union’s political action committee. (For more from the author of “Trump Likely to Name 1 of These 2 Judges to Supreme Court” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Globalist Koch Brothers Attack Trump’s Islamic Refugee Ban

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Solange Reyner. An official representing the Koch brothers on Sunday called Donald Trump’s refugee and travel ban “counterproductive.”

“We believe it is possible to keep Americans safe without excluding people who wish to come here to contribute and pursue a better life for their families,” said Brian Hooks, co-chairman of the Koch network. “The travel ban is the wrong approach and will likely be counterproductive . . .

Trump on Friday signed an executive order banning travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries associated with terrorism from entering the country for 90 days. The countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. (Read more from “Globalist Koch Brothers Attack Trump’s Islamic Refugee Ban” HERE)

_________________________________________

Gingrich Criticizes Roll-Out of Trump Refugee Plan

By Cathy Burke. A rocky rollout of President Donald Trump’s ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority nations is making the first test of the new administration’s immigration policy look like an “off-Broadway” performance, according to Newt Gingrich.

In comments to the Washington Post, President Trump’s informal adviser and former House Speaker weighed in on the reported conflict within the administration about the executive order that has triggered widespread protests.

“The problem they’ve got is this is an off-Broadway performance of a show that is now the No. 1 hit on Broadway,” Gingrich told the newspaper.

According to the Post, another area of heated debate within the administration is over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which grants legal protection to illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children. (Read more from “Gingrich Criticizes Roll-Out of Trump Refugee Plan” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

It Took Just One Week for the NY Times to Blame Trump for ‘Deaths Around the World’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Polemic New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof reached a new level of outrageous this week with “President Trump’s War on Women Begins,” claiming President Donald Trump will be responsible for “deaths around the globe” after reinstating the “Mexico City policy.” The policy, which prohibits federal tax dollars from going to international organizations that perform or support abortion services, is usually reinstated during Republican administrations.

Kristof believes that Trump upholding his pro-life campaign promises as president is either a deception or “the measure of his delusion.” Because, in Kristof’s mind, it’s logically impossible and inhumane to believe in the pro-life message otherwise. In the leftist columnist’s eyes, the reinstatement of the Mexico City policy is Trump’s “most horrific chicanery.”

Of all the faux pas and unsubstantiated statements from Trump, Nicholas Kristoff thinks that his move to ban taxpayer dollars from paying for the contraception and abortions for women overseas is the worst.

Why? Because we are “increasing the number of abortions and dying women,” and “the victims invariably are among the most voiceless, powerless people in the world.”

There are two problems with Kristoff’s thinking. First, it’s fallacious to think that it’s Americans’ obligation to fund abortion-supporting organization to prevent more, future/hypothetical abortions. Kristoff has written that he “find[s] abortion a difficult issue, because a fetus seems much more than a lump of tissue but considerably less than a human being. Most of us are deeply uncomfortable with abortion, especially in the third trimesters, but we still don’t equate it with murder.”

But many, many Americans do think abortion is morally wrong, because it’s the taking of a life. And even if a fetus doesn’t seem as human as a spry 25-year-old, that doesn’t mean a fetus doesn’t have all the trappings of a human being — it’s just in a particular stage of growth.

So is it just to take the tax dollars of the many Americans who morally object to fund overseas abortions? Especially when even a pro-abortion liberal like Kristof finds the morality of abortion “difficult”? Is it ever morally acceptable to knowingly aid in the killing of a human life in order to prevent an unknown and hypothetical? No.

Second, the voiceless victims Kristof thinks will be hardest hit by the Mexico City policy reinstatement are the women losing access to abortion services. But what about all the unborn children whose lives come to a brutal end in the womb? They are very literally voiceless victims. No mention of them, though, in Kristof’s polemic.

Kristof finishes his piece by calling on all the protesters at the Women’s March last weekend to keep marching, because “it’s about the lives of women and girls.”

Please, Nicholas Kristof, think about all the girls who never got the chance to live because they were murdered in the womb. (For more from the author of “It Took Just One Week for the NY Times to Blame Trump for ‘Deaths Around the World'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Are Trump Voters Heretics?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Stephen Mattson, writing last week in Sojourners Magazine, raised a passionate warning for white evangelicals, saying that while we sing worship songs about keeping “eyes above the waves,” we’ve elected a president who rejects refugees who have passed through those same waves. We’re “refusing shelter and opportunity to some of the world’s most helpless and oppressed people,” he adds.

Our hypocrisy is thick and rancid, says Mattson. Whereas Christ has called us to aid “the poor, oppressed, maligned, mistreated, sick, and those most in need of help,” conservative policies instead encourage “xenophobia, misogyny, racism, hatred, corruption and fear.”

And who did we just vote for? Blogger Zack Hunt notes that during the campaign, Trump declared his “personal motto is ‘eye for an eye.’” He admitted that he never asked for forgiveness, he “pathologically lied,” he spoke of his own daughter in a creepy way and he bragged about sexually assaulting women — among other un-Christ-like behavior.

Late in the primaries I wrote a little e-book entitled The Trump Bible: Why No Christian Should Vote for Donald Trump. (And echoed some of my arguments here.) After Clinton became the only alternative, I lacked the heart to promote that booklet. But I sympathize with my liberal brothers and sisters. Witnessing so many fellow Christians’ glee at Trump’s election must be, for them, like getting on a bus and finding your fellow passengers wearing prison uniforms and sporting tattoos of Las Vegas show girls. “What? Did I catch the right bus?”

But before our liberal brothers and sisters in Christ jump off the bus, let us try to understand one another better.

Not Most Christians’ First Choice

First, liberals should know that Donald Trump was not the first choice for most conservative Christians.

In the month before the election, I drove around the United States speaking about a book I had more heart to promote (Jesus is No Myth). Over and over again I heard, “I am deeply concerned about Trump’s character. But Hillary is just as dishonest and even more crooked. And I cannot support someone who willingly allows the deaths of unborn children.”

Christians on the left and the right agree it is a Christian’s duty to care for “the least of these.” Many feel this must begin with the unborn.

Christianity Isn’t Such a Failure After All

Second, there is reason to believe American Christianity has not utterly failed when it comes to following the example of Jesus.

In his book Who Really Cares, sociologist Arthur Brooks points out that devout American believers, left and right, tend to give about the same amount to charity, more than three times more than those who seldom attend religious services. Committed believers even give far more blood than nonbelievers. And Americans are vastly more personally forthcoming with funds than Europeans. So has American Christianity failed? Not at making Americans Christians among the most generous people in the world. (Tom Gilson gives examples from his own church, here — and I see evidence of the same in every church where I speak.)

Who Is Our Neighbor?

But what about refugees drowning beneath waves while we sing songs?

Right and Left do face one another across a deep philosophical divide. Our assumptions about economics, just warfare, and even human nature often seem starkly at odds. Yet our common agreed starting point should be “Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

How does that apply, say, to Trump’s partial ban on immigrants from some Muslim countries?

Liberals may understandably reply:

“When asked ‘Who is my neighbor?’ Jesus told of a ‘Good Samaritan.’ He could have been talking about Syrian refugees! How dense can ‘Christians’ be not to see that nationalistic conservatives are the Pharisees who ‘pass by on the other side,’ voting for a man who denies entrance to needy and abused refugees!”

But a Trump supporter could respond with equal heat:

“Did the Good Samaritan take the mugging victim into his own home? What if he had a daughter, and this traveler had a bad reputation with women? Safe zones — which Senator McCain called for — would be a closer parallel to the inn. After all, not even the early Church allowed people who failed to share its values to join.

“And shouldn’t we also show compassion for blue collar workers whose jobs are put at risk, for women in England and Germany who have been abused by immigrants, or for the victims at the Boston Marathon? Peace and prosperity have been insured for the past 70 years by a strong America holding largely to Judeo-Christian values. That may change, if America accepts all Muslims who wish to come.”

Wisdom Regarding Islam

Loving Middle Eastern Muslims is certainly part of Jesus’ calling. But his first command also includes loving God with our minds. This means acting with wisdom as well as compassion. If we are to love Muslims, we must honestly recognize the nature of the ideology to which they subscribe.

Islam is an inherently aggressive belief system whose pretensions are as universal as those of communism. Islamic law prescribes death for those who convert out. As historian Bernard Lewis notes, Islam has never birthed movements for the liberation of women, slaves or unbelievers.

Building Fences Can Be an Act of Love

Love sometimes means building fences. A cell is a community of chemicals protected by a cell wall. An organ is a co-op of cells protected by a membrane. A body is a community of organs inside skin. Families and schools are protected by walls, locks and fences.

Nations also define themselves in part by rivers, mountains and Great Walls. Yes, love may emerge in rich ways at higher levels of organization, but the integrity of the community must also be guarded, by means of membrane, skin, skulls, brick, Homeland Security, the FBI.

I have welcomed foreigners to America, but in one case endangered loved ones in the process, through failing to understand how much culture and religion matter, especially in treatment of women. Nothing bad came of that error (involving a young Muslim man), thankfully, because our trust remained guarded.

Jesus said “Love God, love your neighbors as yourself.” He did not promise that understanding how best to do so would be easy, or that everyone would agree on the same solutions.

So let followers of Christ dialogue in humility, wisdom and genuine compassion. Let’s recognize the complexities of life. And let’s not indulge ourselves in any form of easy self-righteousness towards those with whom we disagree. (For more from the author of “Are Trump Voters Heretics?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Refugee Order Balances Security and Compassion

/0 Comments/in , /by

Read any commentary on the just signed executive order on visa and refugee vetting from several countries in the Middle East and odds are the assessment will tell you more about the writer’s politics than be an analysis of the order.

I confess: I have a perspective as well. Mine comes from working on the presidential team on both foreign policy and homeland security from after the Republican convention up to the inauguration. I can’t share the detailed workings of the team. But what I can share, having worked on the issues, is what I believe guided the work.

And it all started with making America safe.

Not campaign promises, anger at any religion, or prejudice of any kind impacted our thinking on the transition team. What we were worried about were future threats.

As the space for the Islamic State, or ISIS, gets squeezed in the Middle East, the remains of the tens of thousands of foreign fighters will have to flow somewhere. Every nation, not just the U.S., believes they are most likely to flow to the countries cited in the order. That fact, and only that fact, is why those countries are included on the list. Indeed, when it comes to visa vetting, that’s why the European Union has restrictions that are comparable to the United States.

The reason why we all worry is because, from those countries, foreign fighters could well try to flow to the West, principally by using visas or posing as refugees. When they get to the West, they could carry out terrorist acts. We know that because they already have—specifically in Western Europe.

They haven’t come to the U.S.—yet. Right now, our primary threat is Islamist-related terror plots that are organized by terrorists who are already here.

What this administration is doing is making sure we are ready for the next wave of terrorism as well—the outflow of terrorists from the countries of conflict where the foreign fighters are likely to go first.

There are already cries that the precautions are unfair—creating hardships. Fair enough, but terrorists attacks (like those at the Bataclan in France by the followers of ISIS) create unbearable hardships as well—and the government has the responsibility to find the right balance between security and compassion for its citizens as well as consider how U.S. actions impact others around the world.

One area where the order tries to get that balance right is to ensure future refugee processing prioritizes addressing the plight of religious minorities. That is particularly crucial in the Middle East where the remnants of the region’s Christian communities are under severe threat.

Worldwide persecutions against Christian minorities have been rising for four straight years. It’s particularly problematic in the Middle East. The administration is making an extra effort to address that crisis.

While critics will continue to demonize the administration’s policies because they don’t fit their politics, Americans who crave a foreign policy that prioritizes American interests, puts a compassionate face on statecraft that reflects our values, and acts responsibly will find much to respect in the order. (For more from the author of “Trump Refugee Order Balances Security and Compassion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Takes the First Step in Restoring the US Military

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Friday, President Donald Trump signed an exceptionally important executive order initiating both the beginning of the rebuilding of the U.S. armed forces and the fulfillment of a campaign promise.

Because he signed this order on the same day he signed the order on immigration it hasn’t yet gotten the attention it deserves. That’s a shame.

The order, titled “Rebuilding the U.S. Armed Forces,” has not yet been officially posted to the White House website. But a draft of the order, accompanied by news reports, gives us enough details to be able to assess it.

The order directs Secretary of Defense James Mattis to conduct a 30-day review of the readiness of the armed forces to assess their ability to conduct the fight against the Islamic State, or ISIS, and other forms of radical Islamic terrorism, as well as near peer competitors and regional adversaries.

This review is critically needed. The Heritage Foundation has been vocal in calling for such a review based on our independent assessment of the U.S. military.

The Heritage 2017 Index of U.S. Military Strength assessed our overall military capability as “marginal, trending towards weak” because of many years of budget cuts and overuse. Our assessment found that the U.S. Army today is the smallest it has been since the start of World War II; the Navy is the smallest it has been since World War I; and the Air Force suffers from crippling shortages of pilots and maintenance personnel. For example, the average age of the Air Force’s planes is 27 years old.

For too long the nation, and the president, has neglected the state of military readiness in favor of other priorities.

This 30-day review will allow the defense secretary and the president to establish the facts and determine the necessary priorities for the rebuilding of the military.

The order also calls for a review to “reduce commitments not directly related to the highest priority operations to make resources available for training and maintenance.” This is also overdue.

As described in the Heritage’s “Blueprint for Balance,” the Department of Defense spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year on programs not directly related to military readiness such as non-military-related medical research, sustainable energy programs, and junior ROTC programs. Although there won’t be enough resources identified just through cuts and efficiencies to fix the Pentagon’s readiness problems, every little bit helps.

Perhaps most significantly, the order directs Mattis and the director of the Office of Budget and Management to develop both a new request for emergency funding for fiscal year 2017 and to revise the still-to-be-released budget request for 2018 to provide the increased funding needed to begin the rebuilding of the military.

That direction aligns with recommendations from both Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas. McCain and Thornberry, the chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services committees, respectively, both have a clear-eyed view of the critical state of the U.S. military and have written persuasively on the need for additional defense funding.

Obtaining additional funding for defense will require some difficult negotiations within Congress and with the White House, but the need is so critical that failure to succeed is not a viable option.

Congress and the administration will need to establish concrete and measurable objectives for the rebuilding of our military so that the American taxpayer can be assured that every dollar applied to defense results in an improvement.

Finally, the executive order calls for a new nuclear posture and missile defense reviews, two critical defense areas that have both suffered considerably under the Obama administration. Heritage has been consistent and vocal in pointing out the need for new reviews and increased investment of our nation’s nuclear and missile defense domains.

Could all of these actions been undertaken without a presidential executive order? Certainly. But by signing this order, Trump has sent an unambiguous signal across his administration that the rebuilding of our military is one of his top priorities. Given the threats our nation faces today to its national interests, this sends exactly the right signal to both our allies and potential adversaries. (For more from the author of “Trump Takes the First Step in Restoring the US Military” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

13 of Trump’s Cabinet Nominees Await Senate Approval, Leaving Agencies Without a Leader

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump moved at a blistering pace to fulfill several campaign promises during his first week in the White House. At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, however, 13 of his Cabinet nominees continue to wait for confirmation votes.

Obama had 11 of his 15 Cabinet secretaries in place after his first week. Trump has two.

Trump begins his second week with the same number of Cabinet secretaries as last week: two. That number should at least double by Tuesday after the Senate votes to confirm Rex Tillerson for secretary of state and Elaine Chao for secretary of transportation.

The slow pace of confirmations is delaying Trump’s ability to implement his agenda, several former administration officials told The Daily Signal.

It’s also a sharp contrast from President Barack Obama’s early days. Trump’s Democrat predecessor had 11 of his 15 Cabinet secretaries in place after his first week (including Robert Gates, who remained as defense secretary from the prior administration).

Five of the past six presidents—Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama—had nearly their entire Cabinet installed by their second week in the White House. President George H.W. Bush faced delays, but he had the advantage of retaining three of Reagan’s Cabinet secretaries.

This week’s planned confirmation votes on Tillerson and Chao, coupled with committee action on several other nominees, should generate some movement after the GOP-controlled Senate made little progress last week. (See list at bottom for this week’s schedule.)

Last week, Republicans left town for a three-day retreat in Philadelphia, but they did confirm two non-Cabinet officials: Mike Pompeo to lead the CIA and Nikki Haley as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. On Jan. 20, Inauguration Day, the Senate approved James Mattis for defense secretary and John Kelly for homeland security secretary.

Democrats have vowed to mount a fight against at least eight of Trump’s nominees, including Tillerson. Due to a rules change that Democrats made in 2013 while they were in the majority, however, they lack the votes to ultimately defeat Trump’s nominees. It now takes a simple majority to confirm nominees, and Republicans control 52 seats compared to the Democrats’ 48. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer still can employ delaying tactics, though.

170120_Confirmation-Timing-1024x532

Such delays could stall the Trump administration’s ability to implement policies or carry out executive orders, said Don Devine, director of the Office of Personnel Management under Reagan.

“This is a president who wants change, and he has got to get his nominees confirmed as soon as possible if he is going to get that change,” Devine told The Daily Signal.

Continuity of government is usually not a problem, but implementing the president’s agenda is, said Becky Norton Dunlop, the Ronald Reagan distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Dunlop served in the Reagan administration at the White House, Justice Department, and Interior Department.

“From the standpoint of taking control of the government, it’s important for the president to employ people to act,” Dunlop told The Daily Signal.

Most of Trump’s nominees ultimately will be confirmed, Dunlop said. She said this is just an effort by Schumer, D-N.Y., to curb their effectiveness. The minority leader knows that the longer it takes for Trump’s nominees to win Senate approval, the later they’ll start implementing the new president’s agenda.

“This is a way to damage these nominees that might have a more conservative agenda under President Trump and discourage them from moving forward aggressively,” Dunlop said.

For example, Tom Price, the Georgia congressman who Trump nominated to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, will play a crucial role when it comes to dismantling Obamacare.

One of Trump’s first actions directed his administration to rework the health care law’s numerous regulations. But without a secretary in place, there’s no one leading the charge at the agency.

Price, like Tillerson, is on Schumer’s list of eight nominees who Democrats oppose. The others include Betsy DeVos for education secretary, Steve Mnuchin for treasury secretary, Andrew Puzder as labor secretary, and Jeff Sessions for attorney general. Schumer’s list also includes Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency and Mick Mulvaney for the Office of Management and Budget, although they aren’t part of the Cabinet.

The remaining unconfirmed Cabinet nominees include Ben Carson for housing and urban development secretary, Rick Perry for energy secretary, Sonny Perdue for agriculture secretary, Wilbur Ross for commerce secretary, David Shulkin for veterans affairs secretary, and Ryan Zinke for interior secretary.

Republicans were in the Senate minority in 2009 when many of Obama’s nominees won quick confirmation without obstruction or delay. In fact, nine of Obama’s nominees were approved by voice vote, meaning Republicans didn’t even request a roll-call tally.

170103_2009-cabinet-picks_v3

Despite having 57 Democrat senators on Jan. 20, 2009, Obama’s final Cabinet secretary wasn’t confirmed until April 28 of that year. Two of his picks for commerce secretary withdrew, as did former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, whom Obama picked to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

The vacancy hampered the health agency when the swine flu outbreak occurred, recalled Tevi Troy, who served as a deputy secretary at HHS during the George W. Bush administration.

“It is a problem because these agencies are not able to be totally effective without a secretary at the top of the agency giving direction to assistant secretaries for the entire agency,” Troy told The Daily Signal.

During the interim period before a Cabinet secretary is confirmed, the acting agency head could be either a career employee or a political appointee designated by the previous administration. Either way, the White House designates someone to work with the acting secretary during the interim.

“The tradition has been that in the first day or the first week, a lot of nominees are confirmed,” Troy said. “My view is that if a nominee is both ethical and qualified, then the Senate should defer to the president’s choice for a Cabinet nominee.”

Schedule for Week of Jan. 30

Monday: Senate confirmation vote for Rex Tillerson, secretary of state; Senate Finance Committee vote on Steven Mnuchin’s nomination for treasury secretary

Tuesday: Senate confirmation vote for Elaine Chao, secretary of transportation; Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Jeff Sessions’ nomination for attorney general; Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee vote on Ryan Zinke for interior secretary and Rick Perry for energy secretary

Wednesday: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee vote on Mick Mulvaney for director of the Office of Management and Budget (Mulvaney also needs approval from the Senate Budget Committee) (For more from the author of “13 of Trump’s Cabinet Nominees Await Senate Approval, Leaving Agencies Without a Leader” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.