Posts

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.

Don’t Forget: WE Are the Checks and Balances on Trump’s Executive Actions

/0 Comments/in , /by

In his first few days in office, President Donald Trump has attacked the presidency with gusto, issuing a slew of executive actions on everything from a federal hiring freeze to the long promised border wall. Maybe he is eager to prove himself effective, maybe he wants to get started fulfilling campaign promises, or maybe this kind of energy will be typical of his administration even after the new starts to wear off. It’s impossible to say.

So far, the response from the Right has largely been to cheer for the new president. Many on the Right have applauded his zeal to get things done, especially things that conservatives have been asking for so long. After all, easing the burden of Obamacare is certainly important, and the hiring freeze is well within the rights of the executive branch as well as a much needed check on the size of government.

But before we engage in too public jubilation, I would advise conservatives and libertarians to be a bit more circumspect in their praise. The danger of hypocrisy, and of turning into the mirror image of our ideological opponents, is a real one.

Barack Obama was routinely criticized by the Right for his executive overreach and apparent contempt for Congress. His “I’ve got a pen and a phone” comment sent chills down the spine of anyone who valued limited government. He started wars without congressional approval, acted unilaterally on immigration enforcement, and frequently used regulations in place of laws to push forward his agenda. Conservatives howled and liberals sat smugly silent, pleased that “their guy” was doing whatever it took to get around that obstructionist “party of no” in the minority.

Now the situation is reversed. Democrats are in the minority, and are freaking out about Trump’s executive actions. Republicans, on the whole, have either been silent or celebratory, as Trump uses the power of the executive branch to move his agenda forward.

So what’s wrong with that? Politics is all about getting your agenda passed by any means necessary, and resisting that of your opponents, right? Maybe for some people, but there is at least a large share of conservatives and libertarians who operate under a principled belief that too much government power is dangerous, regardless of who happens to be in office. Giving the executive branch unchecked authority may work out well some of the time, but that can come back to bite you when the other side inevitably regains power, as Democrats are learning now.

The founders very specifically created a system with built in checks and balances, a separation of powers, a process by which no one branch of government — much less one person — could do too much damage before the others would rein him in. This is the process that led to America becoming the world’s greatest success story, creating previously unheard of wealth and freedom for its people. This process matters. It could even be argued that it matters more than results, because once the process collapses, there’s nothing to stand in the way of tyranny and oppression, as we see in other undemocratic countries the world over.

This process is what allowed Republicans to block Obama’s Supreme Court nomination, something almost all conservatives will agree was a good thing. Without it, we’d have Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court right now, with who knows what consequences for the laws of the country. But you can bet that when Trump names his own nominee, and Democrats try to resist, a lot of the same people who cheered Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 40%) for blocking Garland will change their tune, calling for the Senate to change its rules and approve the nominee with a simple majority. This is shortsighted thinking.

Not all of Trump’s actions so far have been overreach. Some are well within his purview, and I must admit that I’m pleased with some (though certainly not all) of the policies. For example, putting temporary freeze on hiring within the executive branch is constitutional, and appropriate to be addressed by the chief executive. However, demanding that the Keystone pipeline be built with only U.S. made steel is something that Congress should be responsible for, not the president. Once Trump gets into the habit of having everything he wants, with no resistance from Congress, the courts, or the people, there will be nothing to stop him from legislating from the White House.

You can’t have it both ways. Either you believe in limited government, or you don’t. That belief shouldn’t change with the inhabitant of the White House, or else it’s no true belief at all. (For more from the author of “Don’t Forget: WE Are the Checks and Balances on Trump’s Executive Actions” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Pledges ‘Lasting Support’ to US Relations With Britain

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump on Friday pledged America’s “lasting support” to the U.S.’ historic “special relationship” with Britain after he emerged from his first meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa May, leader of an ally who seeks to nudge the populist president toward the political mainstream.

May, who said the meeting was the start to building their relationship, announced that Trump had accepted an invitation from Queen Elizabeth II for a state visit later this year with his wife, first lady Melania Trump.

Trump sought to charm May, noting during his first news conference as president that, “by the way, my mother was born in Scotland.” (Read more from “Trump Pledges ‘Lasting Support’ to US Relations With Britain” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

On March for Life Week, Trump and Congress Take Steps to Defend Life

/0 Comments/in , /by

This was a big week for the pro-life community.

President Donald Trump and the House of Representatives started the week by taking action to defend life and ensure that taxpayer dollars are not entangled with abortion, both at home and abroad. Then on Friday, tens of thousands of Americans converged on Washington, D.C., for the 44th annual March for Life.

On Monday, Trump reinstated the life-affirming Mexico City policy, which ensures that American taxpayers do not fund international organizations that perform or promote abortions. Since 1984, this policy has been enforced by every Republican president and rescinded by every Democratic president.

Trump’s recently published presidential memorandum indicates that not only is he reinstating the Mexico City policy, he is strengthening it.

As explained by The Daily Signal, it is long-standing policy for the United States to prohibit funding for abortion in international programs.

Without the Mexico City policy, abortion giants like the International Planned Parenthood Federation are eligible to receive millions of taxpayer dollars designated for non-abortion-related activities—but, because money is fungible, this frees up other funds for performing or promoting abortion abroad.

The Mexico City policy closes this loophole by requiring recipients of U.S. aid dollars to certify that they will not perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.

Previous iterations of the policy have applied to U.S. Agency for International Development and State Department funds. The Trump memo expands the policy by instructing the secretary of state and secretary of health and human services to extend the policy to funds “furnished by all departments or agencies.”

Likewise, previous iterations of the policy have applied to nongovernmental organizations that provide services abroad. The Trump memo indicates that the policy will also apply to other international organizations, such as the United Nations Population Fund.

The memo directs the secretary of state to ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars do not fund organizations or programs that “support or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”

Trump is right to include this direction in the memo. During the Obama administration, the U.S. sent over $250 million in taxpayer dollars to the United Nations Population Fund, despite continued assertions that the fund has been involved in China’s coercive two-child policy.

On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act by a bipartisan vote of 238-183.

In a speech on the House floor, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., explained that the legislation makes the Hyde Amendment and other current abortion funding prohibitions permanent and government-wide; ensures that Obamacare (until it is repealed) conforms with the Hyde Amendment; and until a new plan year begins, ensures full disclosure, transparency, and the prominent display of the extent to which any health insurance plan on the exchange covers abortion to empower people to opt out.

Smith also noted that H.R. 7 passed the House in 2014 and 2015, under veto threat from President Barack Obama. The Trump administration, on the other hand, released a statement saying that if presented with H.R. 7, Trump would sign the bill into law.

The majority of the American people do not support the use of tax dollars to fund abortion in the U.S., and it is now time for the Senate to act and permanently codify this life-saving policy.

The tens of thousands of Americans who gathered for the March for Life on Friday came with a message of compassion, hope, and expectation. They are creating a culture of life in America, and they expect their government to reflect this by passing robust policies that respect the dignity of every human being. (For more from the author of “On March for Life Week, Trump and Congress Take Steps to Defend Life” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congressional Democrats Lose Their Minds over Trump’s ‘Wall of Hate’

/0 Comments/in , /by

After President Donald Trump issued an executive order to build a wall on the Mexican border, the House Hispanic Caucus released a lengthy press release condemning Trump’s actions. And congressional Democrats joined suit on Twitter, raging against Trump’s “wall of hate.”

Hispanic Caucus members called Trump’s border wall “ignorant,” “lazy,” “antiquated,” a “waste of everyone’s time and money,” and proof that “Donald Trump is taking this country back to the dark ages.” Every caucus member who attached their name to the press release is a Democrat.

Hispanic Caucus members were joined in their condemnation of the border wall by other House Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Ca. (F, 10%), who claimed that “we will not bow to Donald Trump’s radical xenophobia.”

They tweeted their disdain using the hashtag #WallofHate.

As Trump noted Wednesday, “a nation without borders is not a nation,” and the purpose of a border wall is for “the United States of America…[to] get back its borders.”

Pres. Trump also said the wall is about safety and saving lives. “As I have said repeatedly to the country, we are going to get the bad ones out. The criminals, and the drug dealers, and gangs and gang members and cartel leaders — the day is over when they can stay in our country and wreak havoc.”

For Democrats to claim that a border wall is a “waste of money” is laughable, considering they don’t bat an eye at the towering national debt and our bankrupt entitlement system. It is also ridiculous for Democrats like Nancy Pelosi to complain about Trump’s border project and policy change for sanctuary cities, by saying “we will fight for the right of any community to choose humane and effective law enforcement strategies that work to protect and serve, not deport and intimidate.”

Just two years ago, in Rep. Pelosi’s congressional district in San Francisco, Kate Steinle was shot to death by an illegal alien who had been deported five times but was still was able to roam free in the sanctuary city. What about protecting American citizens like Steinle?

Democrats are near apoplectic about the president’s border wall and immigration policies. But their rhetoric about fiscal responsibility and safety falls laughably flat. (For more from the author of “Congressional Democrats Lose Their Minds over Trump’s ‘Wall of Hate'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump DOJ Likely to Find Many Offenses in Voter Fraud Probe, Experts Say

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump’s Justice Department will likely find numerous offenses to warrant launching a broad investigation into voter fraud, legal experts and watchdog groups say.

Trump has said that more than 3 million to 5 million illegal votes were cast during the 2016 election, causing him to receive a lower popular vote total than his vanquished opponent, Hillary Clinton, whom he defeated in the Electoral College.

On Wednesday, Trump said:

One legal organization took action on preventing voter fraud this week. The Public Interest Legal Foundation, a voter integrity group, reached a consent decree with Noxubee County, Mississippi, which has had voter registration that exceeds the number of county residents since 2011, according to the group. A consent decree is a legal agreement between two parties without an acknowledgment of guilt.

The decree includes requiring the county to identify dead voters on the rolls, clear voter rolls of former county residents, and mail all registered voters who have been inactive since January 2011.

“They know the jig is up,” @TomFitton says.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation this week is also seeking to pry the release of information about noncitizens registered to vote in Manassas, Virginia.

Logan Churchwell, spokesman for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, said it is good that the Justice Department won’t just leave it to the nonprofit groups to weed out fraud.

“We need to know how many noncitizens are voting and know the unknowns,” Churchwell told The Daily Signal. “Trump could just enforce the law. The giant research project he tweeted about, or had a series of tweets about, is worthwhile and only something the federal government could do.”

It’s likely that 800,000 noncitizens illegally voted in the last presidential election, according to Jesse Richman, an associate professor of political science at Old Dominion University, who extrapolated on a 2014 study that examined illegal voting in the 2008 and 2010 elections.

Before the 2016 election, there were several documented cases of voter fraud. These included an FBI probe that found 19 dead people were registered to vote in Harrisonburg, Virginia; a woman arrested in Des Moines, Iowa, for voting twice for Trump; and a CBS News investigation that found multiple cases of dead voters and double voting in Colorado.

Churchwell asserted Trump’s 3 million or more projection couldn’t be proven or disproven, but regardless of whether this is an overstatement, President Barack Obama’s Justice Department ignored Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, better known as the “motor voter” law. This provision requires local governments to maintain and keep voter rolls current.

The Obama administration has not enforced this provision of the motor voter law, and in Florida, Wisconsin, and Ohio, even took action to prevent maintaining the voter registration rolls.

Still others, such as Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice, a liberal legal group at the New York University School of Law, insisted voter fraud is a myth and opposed an investigation.

“An expensive investigation of imaginary voter fraud is not needed. It could easily devolve into a witch hunt,” Waldman said in a public statement. “Worse, it could be used to justify sweeping voting restrictions. There is no need for another investigation that is not independent, rigorous, and fact-based.”

Waldman continued:

There is a great deal of evidence that our voting system locks out far too many eligible citizens from voting. The voter registration system needs an upgrade, and that is something that should unite all Americans. Errors on the voter rolls are emphatically not signs of fraud — they are signs that we need to improve the system.

An investigation into voter fraud would not be complicated, said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group.

“You can see the numbers we are talking about by looking at public voter registration lists and cross-checking that against a list of noncitizens,” Fitton told The Daily Signal. “The federal government could coordinate with state and local governments and determine who registered to vote illegally. It’s a simple process. That’s why the left is so upset. They know the jig is up.”

Enforcing the law is long overdue, said Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation.

“We don’t need [to create] a commission. The Justice Department can enforce the law and work with the Department of Homeland Security, and its records for citizenship and change of status to get an idea of who is illegally registered to vote,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.

Regardless of the investigation’s outcome, von Spakovsky expects critics will dismiss anything that falls short of Trump’s 3 to 5 million illegal voter estimate.

“They may try to dismiss this, but the American people don’t believe what the media say about voter fraud not being real,” von Spakovsky said. “Polling solidifies that.” (For more from the author of “Trump DOJ Likely to Find Many Offenses in Voter Fraud Probe, Experts Say” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Immigration Actions Reverse Obama’s Open Borders Policy

/0 Comments/in , /by

Moving swiftly to fulfill his campaign promise to get the nation’s illegal immigration problem under control, President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on Jan. 25 that constitute an almost complete reversal of the Obama administration’s nonenforcement and open borders policy.

From improving the physical barrier at our southern border to finally moving against sanctuary cities, these two executive orders put into effect a comprehensive program designed to secure our borders, implement interior enforcement, and reintegrate the assistance of state and local governments into federal efforts to enforce our immigration laws.

It has been a long time coming, but it seems to be finally happening: The federal government is actually enforcing our immigration laws.

As the first order, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” correctly sets out in its preamble, “border security is critically important to the national security of the United States” and “aliens who illegally enter… without inspection or admission present a significant threat to national security and public safety.”

The president orders the Department of Homeland Security to immediately take the following steps:

Plan, design, and construct a physical wall, using appropriate materials and technology to most effectively achieve complete operational control of the southern border.

End the “catch and release” policy of the Obama administration, which Border Patrol agents sarcastically referred to as “catch and run” that flooded the country with illegal aliens, as well as dramatically increase the capacity of detention facilities to handle this change and the number of immigration judges needed to handle alien cases.

Return illegal aliens “to the territory from which they came pending a formal removal proceeding,” expedite determinations of apprehended aliens’ claims of eligibility to remain in the U.S., and make federal prosecutions of immigration offenses “with a nexus to the southern border” a priority.

Hire an additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents.

Bring state and local law enforcement agencies back into immigration enforcement to get their assistance in the “investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens,” including through the 287(g) program, something the Obama administration did everything it could to end.

Stop the “abuse of parole and asylum provisions currently used to prevent the lawful removal of removable aliens” by doing what the Obama administration refused to do: Apply the plain language of the provisions in immigration law that set out strict standards for asylum and parole.

Authorize immigration agents and even state officials who are helping federal authorities to enter all federal lands in pursuit of illegal aliens—again something that the Obama Interior Department refused to allow in areas where national parks and other lands were along our borders.

The second, complementary order, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” aims at enhancing interior enforcement of our immigration laws, particularly for “aliens who engage in criminal conduct in the United States.”

This order outlines that executive branch officials are directed to:

Put a priority on removing aliens who have committed criminal offenses; that includes not just violent criminals, but also aliens who engage in fraud in connection with the government or public benefits.

Hire an additional 10,000 immigration officers.

Enter into agreements with as many state and local governments as possible to aid the federal government in enforcing federal immigration laws.

Cut off funding from the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department to sanctuary cities, as well as take appropriate action in court against any such sanctuary cities whose policies violate federal immigration law.

Review all previous immigration actions and policies to rescind or revise any that are inconsistent with federal immigration law or this executive order.

Implement a comprehensive program to prosecute illegal aliens for criminal violations of the law.

Implement sanctions against all “recalcitrant” countries that refuse to take back their nationals who are deported from the U.S.

Establish an office within the Department of Homeland Security to help the victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens.

There is no question that all of these actions, taken together, will be a major step in getting our illegal alien population under control, securing our border, and deterring and reducing the huge influx of illegal aliens into the U.S. that was spurred by the Obama administration’s lax policies.

It would seem that the political will to enforce our immigration laws and take a tough line on the illegal aliens that have been flooding into the country for many years has finally appeared in Washington in the form of Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States.

It is about time. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Immigration Actions Reverse Obama’s Open Borders Policy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.