Posts

FBI and NSA Poised to Gain New Surveillance Powers Under Trump

The FBI, National Security Agency and CIA are likely to gain expanded surveillance powers under President-elect Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress, a prospect that has privacy advocates and some lawmakers trying to mobilize opposition.

Trump’s first two choices to head law enforcement and intelligence agencies — Republican Senator Jeff Sessions for attorney general and Republican Representative Mike Pompeo for director of the Central Intelligence Agency — are leading advocates for domestic government spying at levels not seen since the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The fights expected to play out in the coming months — in Senate confirmation hearings and through executive action, legislation and litigation — also will set up an early test of Trump’s relationship with Silicon Valley giants including Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google. Trump signaled as much during his presidential campaign, when he urged a consumer boycott of Apple for refusing to help the FBI hack into a terrorist’s encrypted iPhone.

An “already over-powerful surveillance state” is about to “be let loose on the American people,” said Daniel Schuman, policy director for Demand Progress, an internet and privacy advocacy organization . . .

In a reversal of curbs imposed after Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013 about mass data-gathering by the NSA, Trump and Congress may move to reinstate the collection of bulk telephone records, renew powers to collect the content of e-mails and other internet activity, ease restrictions on hacking into computers and let the FBI keep preliminary investigations open longer. (Read more from “FBI and NSA Poised to Gain New Surveillance Powers Under Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Threatening Electors Violates Federal Law. So Why Isn’t Loretta Lynch Doing Anything About It?

Before Donald Trump’s stunning victory on November 8, liberals called for acceptance of election results. But since the election didn’t go as they’d planned, some have taken to harassing and intimidating electors in an attempt to change the election results. Some of these threats may violate federal law, yet the Justice Department acts strangely uninterested in investigating.

Following the election, a coalition of liberal activist groups launched #NotMyPresident Alliance, an organization dedicated to fighting the inauguration of President-elect Trump. As part of that effort, #NotMyPresident distributed personal contact information — including telephone numbers and addresses — of electors in states that voted Republican.
According to Buzzfeed, Maddie Deming, a strategist for the group, said they wanted to put electors in the spotlight and “to hold them accountable for their decision.” Whatever the intent, the initiative has produced a deluge of threats.

Electors across the country report receiving not only a flood of emails and phone calls to change their vote to Hillary Clinton but death threats as well. Alex Kim, a Texas Republican elector, reported that he and other electors had “receiv[ed] thousands of emails a day” urging them to vote for Clinton, including threats of harm and death. Arizona’s electors have reported harassment as well.

Michael Banerian, a Michigan GOP elector, received some of the most extreme threats according to The Detroit News. One email, Banerian said, talked about “shoving a gun in my mouth and blowing my brains out.” Another told him to “do society a favor and throw yourself in front of a bus.”

In Georgia and Idaho, the threats have been so extreme that the secretaries of state both released statements calling for the harassment to end. But the federal law enforcement agency that should be acting to stop these threats — the U.S. Department of Justice — has not done a thing.

Section 11b of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. §10307) makes it a crime for anyone to “intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote.” While this has been applied in the past to ordinary, everyday voters in federal elections, the language does not limit it only to such voters. Electors who are casting their votes for president and vice president are also protected by Section 11b since the Electoral College is an essential part of the federal voting process. This is supported by Section 14(c) of the VRA, which says that “voting” includes “all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election.” Obviously, the votes cast by Americans on Nov. 8 will not be effective if the electors they chose are intimidated from casting their votes in the Electoral College.

Federal law (3 U.S.C. §7) requires electors to cast their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December, which this year is Dec. 19. These are recorded as “certificates of vote,” signed, sealed, and delivered by December 28 to the president of the Senate and the archivist of the United States (3 U.S.C. §11). Congress is required to meet on Jan. 6, 2017 in joint session to count the Electoral College votes (3 U.S.C. §15).

The Dec. 19 deadline for the electors to cast their votes is less than three weeks away, which makes it essential that the Justice Department act immediately — and very publicly — to deter and stop these threats and this intimidation. Yet the website of the Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs contains no announcement of an investigation into these threats. Moreover, we can be pretty certain that if investigators had actually contacted any of the threatened electors, it would have been reported in the press by now. The obvious conclusion is that the Justice Department has done nothing to enforce Section 11b against those who have tried to intimidate and who have threatened electors with bodily harm if they vote for Donald Trump.

Unfortunately, that’s not surprising. After nearly eight years of operation, the Obama administration has yet to file a single Section 11b case. Indeed, shortly after Mr. Obama entered the Oval Office, his Justice Department essentially dismissed almost all of a pending, high-profile Section 11b case concerning voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia. Under Attorney General Eric Holder, the Civil Rights Division had the open-and-shut case dismissed because its “progressive” new leaders did not believe the Voting Rights Act should be used against black defendants to protect white voters. This radical position ignores the fact that the law is race-neutral and protects all voters.

Seriously, if Hillary Clinton had won and Donald Trump supporters were threatening Clinton electors with bodily injury, does anyone doubt that the Justice Department would have acted immediately to enforce Section 11b?

Making threats and attempting to intimidate electors is as anti-democratic as it gets. The U.S. Justice Department, which is charged with protecting all voters, should act to quash this outrage immediately. Failure to do so will just be further evidence that this Justice Department does not believe in equal protection under the law. (For more from the author of “Threatening Electors Violates Federal Law. So Why Isn’t Loretta Lynch Doing Anything About It?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

6 Interesting Facts About Elaine Chao, Trump’s Pick for Transportation Secretary

President-elect Donald Trump tapped Elaine Chao to head the U.S. Department of Transportation, his transition team announced Tuesday.

“Secretary Chao’s extensive record of strong leadership and her expertise are invaluable assets in our mission to rebuild our infrastructure in a fiscally responsible manner,” Trump said in a statement. “She has an amazing life story and has helped countless Americans in her public service career.”

Chao is an experienced administration official, having served as labor secretary under President George W. Bush and deputy secretary of transportation under President George H.W. Bush.

In the new Trump administration, Chao stands to serve an influential role, as the president-elect made investing in infrastructure and reducing or eliminating “burdensome regulations” a key component in his campaign.

“The President-elect has outlined a clear vision to transform our country’s infrastructure, accelerate economic growth and productivity, and create good paying jobs across the country,” said Chao in a statement. “I am honored to be nominated by the President-elect to serve my beloved country as Transportation Secretary.”

Trump’s ambitious infrastructure policy agenda includes transforming the nation’s roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, railroads, ports, waterways, and pipelines “in the proud tradition of President Dwight D. Eisenhower,” according to his website.

If the Senate confirms Chao, she will succeed Anthony Foxx, who is the second official to serve in the position under President Barack Obama.

Here are six things to know about Trump’s pick for transportation secretary.

1) She comes from a humble background.

In 1961, at just 8 years old, Chao arrived in the United States on a freight ship from Taiwan. Her family was fleeing the communist revolution on mainland China. At the time, she spoke no English.

According to her biography, the experience of transitioning to a new country “motivated her to dedicate most of her professional life to ensuring that all people have the opportunity to build better lives.”

Chao graduated from Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts before receiving her MBA from the Harvard Business School.

2) She was the first Asian-American woman to be appointed to a president’s Cabinet.

Chao served as secretary of labor under George W. Bush from 2001 to 2009. In this position, she was “the longest tenured secretary of labor since World War II, and the only member of President Bush’s original Cabinet to have served the entire eight years of his administration.”

Before serving under George W. Bush, his father, President George H.W. Bush, tapped Chao to run the Peace Corps. A year later, she headed the nonprofit United Way of America, which faced controversy after its former president was accused of abusing charity funds.

Under the first President Bush, Chao also served as deputy transportation secretary.

According to The New York Times, she became so popular among Chinese-American families for holding these posts that they would “wait to meet her in airports.”

3) She’s worked with a variety of D.C.-based think tanks.

In June, Chao became a distinguished fellow at the Hudson Institute, researching areas of “employment, labor mobility, international trade, and U.S. competitiveness in a worldwide economy.”

Prior to joining Hudson, she served as a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation, which is the parent organization of The Daily Signal, for two stints from 1996-2000 and 2009-2016. At Heritage, she focused on jobs and the economy, trade, and competitiveness issues.

4) She’s been an influential force behind her husband, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Although Chao has never herself run for elected office, she has put in her fair share of campaigning for her husband, Sen. Mitch McConnell, the GOP leader from Kentucky.

During his 2014 re-election bid against the well-funded Alison Lundergan Grimes, “Chao headlined 50 of her own events and attended hundreds more with and on behalf of McConnell,” according to Time.

Her husband isn’t afraid to admit her influence: “The biggest asset I have by far is the only Kentucky woman who served in a president’s Cabinet, my wife, Elaine Chao,” McConnell said at the annual Fancy Farm GOP political picnic in August, according to Time.

5) She backed Donald Trump for president.

Unlike her former boss, Chao joined dozens of former George W. Bush administration officials in September in voicing their support for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Chao, along with former Treasury Secretary John Snow, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, and former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson—among others—were part of a coalition of Bush alumni supportive of Trump, according to Reuters.

6) She’s the second person to head the departments of Transportation and Labor, and be married to the Senate majority leader.

From Alex Burns of The New York Times:

Former Sen. Elizabeth Dole, wife of former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, led the Department of Transportation under President Ronald Reagan and the Department of Labor under the elder Bush. (For more from the author of “6 Interesting Facts About Elaine Chao, Trump’s Pick for Transportation Secretary” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Chooses Conservative Georgia Congressman, a Harsh Critic of Obamacare, to Be Health Secretary

President-elect Donald Trump plans to select House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) to be his Health and Human Services secretary, two people familiar with the decision said late Monday.

In picking Price, Trump tapped an arch-conservative lawmaker and leading critic of the Affordable Care Act to lead his push to roll back President Obama’s signature health law.

Price, a six-term congressman from suburban Atlanta, has never held an executive position comparable to leading the federal Department of Health and Human Services, a behemoth that includes the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and the agency overseeing Medicare and Medicaid.

Three of the four previous Health and Human Services secretaries were former governors. Price, an orthopedic surgeon, would be the first physician to serve as the department’s secretary since Dr. Louis Sullivan, who held the post from 1989 to 1993 under President George H.W. Bush. (Read more from “Trump Chooses Conservative Georgia Congressman, a Harsh Critic of Obamacare, to Be Health Secretary” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Liberal Media Hacks Say Challenging Election Results Undermines Democracy… Unless You’re Hillary Clinton

Before the election, the media was in hysterics over the possibility that Donald Trump might not concede defeat if Hillary Clinton was declared the winner. Now that the election is over, and Trump won, the media’s reaction to Hillary Clinton actually challenging the results is … tepid? At best?

During the third and final presidential debate, amid concerns that voter fraud would become an issue, Donald Trump said that he would accept the results of the election after taking a look at it “at the time.”

As Trump told moderator Chris Wallace in October:

I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at anything now. I’ll look at it at the time.

What I’ve seen — what I’ve seen is so bad. First of all, the media is so dishonest and so corrupt, and the pile-on is so amazing. The New York Times actually wrote an article about it, but they don’t even care. It’s so dishonest. And they’ve poisoned the mind of the voters.

But unfortunately for them, I think the voters are seeing through it. I think they’re going to see through it. We’ll find out on November 8th. But I think they’re going to see through it.

Trump was simply reserving his legal right to challenge the election if there was suspicion of voter fraud. Hillary Clinton referred to Trump’s comments as “horrifying.”

And, taking their cue from the Democratic nominee, the media reaction to Trump’s statements was apoplectic.

The New York Times: Donald Trump Won’t Say if He’ll Accept Result of Election

CNN: Donald Trump refuses to say whether he’ll accept election results

Huffington Post: Trump’s Shocking Answer On Respecting Election Results Is The Only Debate Moment That Matters

The Huffington Post was particularly startled. The very day before the election, Julia Craven wrote an article recounting the history of a contested presidential election in 1876, noting that “civil unrest” and “fears of a second Civil War” were among the concerns of the American people during that time.

Forecasting a situation where Trump lost and refused to concede to Hillary Clinton, Craven anticipated 1) The legitimacy of the president would be undermined; 2) violence from Trump supporters would break out; and 3) Trump’s refusing to concede would undermine the integrity of “democracy itself.”

Now, it is important to note two of those things have happened since Trump’s victory. First, the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency is being undermined by large groups of malcontents parading around, flipping off buildings and protesting and tweeting #NotMyPresident. Secondly, there have been incidents of violence after the election … from liberals and Hillary Clinton supporters.

As for the liberal media’s concern over an election challenge “threatening to upend a fundamental pillar of American democracy,” that was then, it seems.

Now that the Clinton campaign is jumping on the Green Party bandwagon to challenge the results after wacko-liberal Jill Stein raised millions of dollars for a recount in Wisconsin, the silence from the editorial pages of America’s major newspapers is deafening.

Check out this reporting, and compare it to the headlines above:

ABC: Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Joins Wisconsin Recount

Washington Post: Clinton campaign will participate in Wisconsin recount, with an eye on ‘outside interference,’ lawyer says

New York Times: Hillary Clinton’s Team to Join Wisconsin Recount Pushed by Jill Stein

CNN: Clinton to join recount that Trump calls ‘scam’

Politico: Trump rages as Clinton helps recount

And then there’s the Huffington Post, who ran this milquetoast headline:

“Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Says It Will Participate In Wisconsin Recount”

Now, let’s be very clear about something: The Clinton campaign is entitled to challenge the results of the election if they believe something is amiss; that is their legal right. (Just as the Trump campaign had the right to reserve concession if they believed incidents of fraud manipulated the results.)

The issue is not with calls for a recount — it is with a biased liberal media disproportionately applying their scorn and hysterics because they’re playing team sports for the Democrats. (For more from the author of “Liberal Media Hacks Say Challenging Election Results Undermines Democracy … Unless You’re Hillary Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

People Voted for a Conservative Court: What Court Will Trump Give Them?

As we react, and overreact, to every report regarding who might serve in the forthcoming Trump administration, let us make sure we keep our eye on the prize. For there is one decision to come soon after the inauguration that I believe could very well be the barometer for his presidency.

That decision will be who Trump nominates to succeed Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is the one decision the Trump presidency cannot get wrong — even slightly. This has to be a hundred percenter. A no doubter. This is no time for a John “Obamacare” Roberts or an Anthony “Rainbow Jihad” Kennedy redux.

This is the replacement for Scalia we’re talking about, so this needs to be someone whose judicial philosophy is embedded like the Rock of Gibraltar in his or her record. No guesswork, just someone with the sort of bedrock originalism Scalia was known for, and young enough to helm the spot for a couple of decades at least.

Nothing less than the ideological balance of the court is at stake in this decision. While I’ve spent much of my career fighting judicial oligarchy masquerading as stare decisis — and I remind everyone reading this that in no way, shape, or form did the Founding Fathers intend for the rule of law to hinge on one SCOTUS appointment — I also can’t live in the land of make-believe.

As the great prophet Bill Belicheck likes to say, “It is what it is.” While the courts shouldn’t (and don’t really) have this much power, we sadly behave as if they do.

Which explains why so many conservatives — who said after 2008 and 2012 they were done plugging their noses for Republican presidential nominees who didn’t seem to be with us — did it once more in droves in 2016. Exit polls showed more than one in five voters said Supreme Court appointments were the most important factor in how they voted for president. And among those voters, Trump bested Hillary by a whopping 17 points.

So now is a time to take a trip to the way-back machine. This is from Nov. 10, 2003:

A battle between two Christian conservative heroes is shaping up in Alabama. On Nov.10, attorney general Bill Pryor (R) asked the Alabama Court of the Judiciary to remove the state’s Chief Justice Roy Moore from office. Moore, long an outspoken advocate for displaying the Ten Commandments on government property, is facing a trial before the court. He was suspended earlier this year by the state’s judicial ethics board after he openly defied a federal court order to remove a massive monument to the Ten Commandments from a state building. At the time Pryor announced his intention to cooperate with federal authorities to remove the monument even though he had earlier defended Moore’ position that the display is Constitutional.

Why do I bring up this story? Because the same Bill Pryor mentioned here is also being prominently mentioned as a potential candidate to replace Scalia.

No, this is not the Scalia replacement you’re looking for.

Anyone willing to use his power as attorney general — under a Republican administration — to undermine the source of our rule of law cannot be trusted to defend the rule of law on the nation’s highest court. We already have enough justices on the court who believe the law evolves according to the whims and desires of mere mortals, thank you very much.

Again, we’re looking for originalists, not legal positivists. The former recognizes “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” as the original source for our laws. The latter thinks the law is changed and even originates from every stroke of a judge’s pen. If you wanted that, you would’ve voted for Hillary.

Pryor is not a Scalia for a Scalia. At best he’s a Roberts for a Scalia, and that’s a loss. We have to do better than that. We have to do better than the guy who stabbed Judge Roy Moore in the back for daring to stand up and defend the rule of law. Because what is the original rule of all law in our form of government?

The Ten Commandments.

We need someone who won’t bow to the political winds like Pryor did because President George W. Bush wanted no part of such a vitally important fight. Or like Roberts did concerning Obamacare not once but twice.

Lyndon Johnson was correct when he said, “Power is where power goes.” And those nine black-robed Supreme Court justices have real power. That power must be used accordingly. So repeat after me: there can be no calculated risks in the replacement of Scalia. We need to be as certain of this person’s convictions as we are of gravity.

And when Trump is only assuming the presidency because he won the four states that put him over the top by 1.4 points or less apiece, that means all of you who plugged your noses November 8 for decisions like this are owed bigly. He would not be moving from Trump Tower to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue without each and every one of you. And if he can settle a few Trump University lawsuits he considered to be frivolous to preserve his presidency, you better believe he must deliver for you here.

If Trump won’t give us a Scalia for a Scalia now, when he’s on a honeymoon with the American people and has ample political capital to spend, what makes you think he’ll fight to replace a Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg (both of whom are over 80 years-old) with a conservative later on when that fight promises to be much tougher?

This is why this is the most important early decision of the Trump presidency. It will set a tone in telling us whether Trump will keep his most important promises or not. (For more from the author of “People Voted for a Conservative Court: What Court Will Trump Give Them?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

More Than 800,000 Noncitizens May Have Voted in 2016 Election, Expert Says

An election expert projects more than 800,000 noncitizens voted in the 2016 election and overwhelmingly for Democrat Hillary Clinton.

While substantial, that number doesn’t overcome Clinton’s 2.2 million popular vote lead over Republican President-elect Donald Trump, who won a decisive Electoral College triumph of 306 to 232.

On Sunday, the president-elect tweeted he would have won the popular vote had it not been for illegal votes cast. The Trump transition team on Monday cited nonpartisan studies on noncitizens voting and of faulty voter registration across the country. Only citizens 18 or older can legally vote.

“Extrapolating on data from several years ago certainly doesn’t substantiate the claim that Trump is making now,” Jesse Richman, an associate professor of political science at Old Dominion University, told The Daily Signal. “That could change. If there is a recount in Michigan and Trump loses by a few votes, then it’s very plausible that noncitizen voting made a big difference. Hopefully, it doesn’t come to that.”

Richman was the co-author of a 2014 study that looked at noncitizen voting in the 2008 and 2010 elections. In the comparable presidential election year, the Old Dominion study determined 6.4 percent on noncitizens in the United States voted in the 2008 presidential election, and about 81 percent of those voters backed Democrat Barack Obama.

Richman applied those numbers to 2016:

The basic assumptions on which the extrapolation is based are that 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted, and that of the noncitizens who voted, 81.8 percent voted for Clinton and 17.5 percent voted for Trump. … 6.4 percent turnout among the roughly 20.3 million noncitizen adults in the U.S. would add only 834,318 votes to Clinton’s popular vote margin. This is little more than a third of the total margin. … Is it plausible that noncitizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes. Is it plausible that noncitizen votes account for the entire nationwide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.

A December 2015 study led by Stephen Ansolabehere of Harvard University argued the 2014 Old Dominion study was flawed and that “the likely percent of noncitizen voters in recent U.S. elections is zero.” Richman responded to the criticism and said suggesting zero percent does not hold up.

Trump transition team spokesman Jason Miller cited the Old Dominion study reported on in The Washington Post in 2014, as well as a Pew Research Center study from 2012 about problems with voter registration across the country.

“An issues of concern is that so many have voted that are not legally supposed to,” Miller told reporters in a conference call Monday.

He said this warrants more attention than the “shiny object” Jill Stein and the Green Party are using to push recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that have no chance of overturning the election.

Beyond the noncitizens voting study from Old Dominion, Miller pointed to the Pew study from 2012 that found 24 million voter registration records in the United States, or about 1 in 8, were “significantly inaccurate or no longer valid.”

The Pew study further found “1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters,” that “12 million records contain an incorrect address,” and that “2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.”

It would take a very high percentage of noncitizens voting to overcome the Clinton popular vote lead, said Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors strong immigration enforcement.

“If 10 percent of noncitizens voted, it would likely make a popular vote difference,” Camarota told The Daily Signal. “It’s not the Electoral College he’s upset about. It’s the popular vote. I wish he wouldn’t focus on it. Bill Clinton got just 43 percent of the vote in 1992. How many states did he win more than 50 percent of the vote in?”

Trump could be correct about the number of illegal votes, but there is no way to know, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow with The Heritage Foundation who focuses on voter integrity issues.

“It’s possible he’s right, but we don’t know because there is no way to quantify, no system in place to identify noncitizens voting,” Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. “The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security should obtain state voter registration lists and check against noncitizen database. And the DOJ should start prosecuting noncitizens who are voting.”

Prosecuting voter fraud will have to be a higher priority under the Trump administration than under the Obama administration, said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog.

“It has got to be a priority I would think based on Mr. Trump’s rhetoric,” Fitton told The Daily Signal. “At least, make sure that only citizens are registered to vote. We need basic reforms to reassure people that elections are free and fair.” (For more from the author of “More Than 800,000 Noncitizens May Have Voted in 2016 Election, Expert Says” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Must End the Obamacare Sex Change Mandate on Day 1. Oh, You Didn’t Know About That?

Over the summer, without much notice at all from the national media, President Obama’s transgender agenda quietly crept out of the locker room and into your doctor’s office, thanks to a largely underreported Obamacare rule.

The Health and Human Services transgender mandate, which went into effect in July, forces doctors to participate in sex changes if they conduct procedures that can also be a part of a sex transition. It does this by following the example of other agencies by expanding the traditional definition of sex discrimination to include people suffering from gender dysphoria.

“We believe that it is important to ensure that civil rights protections are extended to transgender individuals to afford them equal access to health coverage, including for health services related to gender transition,” reads a section of the federal registry.

So what does this “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities” mandate mean in practice? It means that a great deal of doctors are going to be subject to much coercion, courtesy of Obama’s administrative state.

Have you ever performed a mastectomy for breast cancer? Congratulations: You now have to perform sex-change surgeries for women who want to look like men, according to executive fiat. Ever performed an orchiectomy because a patient had testicular cancer? Ditto.

And this applies to child patients, too. Indeed, under the new regulatory regime, any doctor who has ever prescribed hormone therapy but doesn’t want to help a teenage boy look like a girl now stands accused of sexual discrimination.

And the regulators in charge don’t want to allow any room for dissent, either.

“[W]e decline to adopt a blanket religious exemption in the final rule as any religious concerns are appropriately addressed pursuant to pre-existing laws such as RFRA and provider conscience laws,” the registry reads.

Wait, you mean the same laws that were invoked to protect Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor? Sometimes you have to wonder if there’s somebody in Obama’s HHS who just enjoys suing people with traditional beliefs.

Now the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is helping represent multiple clients in lawsuits in Texas and North Dakota stemming from the mandate, which they say (in similar fashion to the abortion and contraception mandates) violates the conscience rights of religious health care providers.

“No doctor should be forced to perform a procedure that he or she believes will harm a child,” reads a statement from Becket senior counsel Lori Windham. “Decisions on a child’s medical treatment should be between families and their doctors, not dictated by politicians and government bureaucrats.”

The distinction is worth noting because the HHS created the rule despite the American College of Pediatrics calling transgender conditioning child abuse in a paper earlier this year. Other research also suggests that a vast majority of cases of gender dysphoria in children will naturally resolve by adolescence’s end — without permanently altering the child’s life and body. But hey, they say that is what “progress” looks like, folks.

But the good news for religious people is that this can all be reversed by close of business on Jan. 20, 2017. As Congress prepares for the upcoming legislative session, there’s already discussion among Republicans on whether Obamacare should be fully or partially repealed, and how that should be accomplished.

This could get ugly, but fixing this egregious problem — just like removing the abortion and contraception mandates that have proven to be equally as damaging to conscience rights — is that it can be undone with a single use of the “pen and phone” that created it in the first place.

In addition to the skyrocketing premiums, collapsing exchanges, and host of other problems associated with the law, Congress now just has one more reason to completely scrap the system before spring. But, even if some less-than-conservative Republicans manage to misread the struggles of the American people and stymie a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, at least President Trump could (and should) quickly eliminate the madness that is the transgender mandate.

Do it for the kids … and the consciences. (For more from the author of “Trump Must End the Obamacare Sex Change Mandate on Day 1. Oh, You Didn’t Know About That?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Evangelicals Who Voted for Trump, and the Value of Listening

Like many Christians who opposed Donald Trump’s election for president, I was disturbed at exit surveys showing that 81 percent of white evangelicals voted for him. Some Christians have already begun criticizing those evangelicals and distancing themselves from them. In time I may join those critics. What has intrigued me recently, though, is why only 16 percent of white evangelicals voted for Hillary Clinton, so I set out to explore that question in an informal way. What I learned was something of a completely different nature, and possibly more important for all of us in the long run.

Not Welcome Here?

The first thing I noted about Clinton’s 16 percent support from Christians was how small that number was. When such a small proportion of a group gives its votes to a candidate, it’s fair to conclude that members of that group do not feel welcomed into that candidate’s party. It’s fair to say that blacks do not feel welcomed in the Republican party, given that only 8 percent voted for Trump. Likewise white evangelicals must not feel welcomed in the Democrat party. Why?

Reluctant Trump Supporters

This is the question I set out to explore. I reached out through Facebook to find Christian “Reluctant Trump” supporters, specifically those who did not support him in the primary but voted for him in the general election. (I have no intention of this being a representative, publishable survey, but simply a way to satisfy some of my curiosity.) I asked their reasons for deciding to support him in the end, and I promised not to argue with them.

Patterns of Responses

Dozens of people answered. Some of my Facebook friends said they supported Trump simply because he was the Republican candidate, and they were either political conservatives or Republicans. Several mentioned supporting the platform rather than the person. Others told me they considered the controversies surrounding Trump to be no worse than those surrounding Clinton, so that, for example, Trump’s sexism was no worse than Clinton’s. Finally, some attributed Trump’s bad image to an unfair media: no matter what charge was leveled at Trump, they would not believe it, coming as it did from what they saw as a corrupt media machine.

Other patterns emerged from the responses. The top issue my Facebook friends expressed concerning Clinton was abortion, followed by concerns about religious freedom. Among those who admitted the controversies surrounding Trump made them hesitant to vote for him, the chief stated concerns had to do with his comments about sexual assault on the Access Hollywood tape. I seldom heard race relations being mentioned, leading me to wonder whether that issue might be the main thing distinguishing NeverTrump Christians from Reluctant Trump Christians.

Someday in the future I might explore this question more rigorously using a proper scientific research design. At this stage all I wanted to do was to actively listen to individuals I disagreed with concerning Trump; to learn their perspectives, so that I could understand better how to relate to them. For now this project was sufficient for me and my curiosity at this time.

The Importance of Listening

I fear that too often we as Christians are too eager to engage in the fight, and are not ready to reach out and hear where others are coming from.

But there is another lesson to be learned here, one that had nothing to do with my survey or everything to do with it, depending on how you view it. It’s about listening.

Listening to others you disagree with can be hard work. I put considerable time and energy into my little project. It was worth it. Gaining understanding of others, particularly of other Christians, is important in a post-Christian society. This is especially true considering all the denominational and racial factions separating Christians today. There is a time for arguing your points and making your objections known. For me that time was leading up to the election. (I am not ashamed in the least for my opposition to Trump.) But there is also a time when the wiser course is simply to take stock of a situation and listen to others.

I fear that too often we as Christians are too eager to engage in the fight, and are not ready to reach out and hear where others are coming from. Listing to one another — genuinely interested, active listening — can help build bridges over the barriers that trouble the Church.

So I wonder how many white Christians are willing to listen to the perspectives of Christians of color? How many Christians of color will listen to whites? How many Christians are open to hearing from others who disagree with them on the role of women in the church? Can we listen to Christians across the political aisle?

The day may come when I will feel obligated to renew my opposition to Trump. I hope if that day comes I will be in a better position to communicate with others who support him, to explain why I feel the way I do, and learn how to work with them in areas both where we disagree and where we agree. (For more from the author of “Evangelicals Who Voted for Trump, and the Value of Listening” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Trump Can Reshape US Policy Toward Refugees

As a candidate for president, Donald Trump advocated a restrictive U.S. policy toward refugee resettlement and other forms of legal immigration.

In his speech accepting the Republican nomination for president, Trump said he would suspend immigration from countries that are “compromised by terrorism.”

Trump, when he assumes office in January, will find that he has significant authority to fulfill his pledge.

“He can decide how many refugees we take and from what regions of the world we take them,” said Kevin Appleby, senior director of international migration policy at the Center for Migration Studies in New York, in an interview with The Daily Signal. “He has a pretty broad brush to pick and choose who he thinks is worthy of admission to the United States.”

Trump has not clarified his position on refugees since becoming president-elect.

But throughout his campaign, Trump targeted the U.S. refugee resettlement program, arguing the government’s vetting system needed to be tougher, especially for Syrians fleeing war and terrorism.

The Obama administration says the current vetting process for Syrian refugees is the most stringent screening for any category of legal immigrant. The process can take up to two years and involves in-person interviews, health tests, and other security checks with multiple government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department.

About 14,500 Syrians have been resettled in the U.S. since last October. There is no known case of a Syrian refugee being involved in a terror plot in the U.S. In January, the U.S. government arrested two men on terrorism-related charges who came to the U.S. as refugees from Iraq.

In September, the Obama administration announced that it wants to resettle 110,000 refugees from around the world—including a substantial number of Syrians—for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. That’s up from 85,000 refugees last year.

The Refugee Act of 1980 gives the U.S. president unilateral power over how many refugees the country admits each fiscal year, and where they come from.

Congress is only consulted in the process and does not get an up or down vote on the numbers.

Traditionally, the refugee resettlement gets broad bipartisan support, but this year, many Republicans protested President Barack Obama’s pledge to raise the number admitted to the U.S.

“This has become a politically correct program where we are led to believe that we have to take refugees from all over the world no matter how dangerous the threat is,” said Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, in an interview with The Daily Signal. “We are out here trying to keep Americans safe. That is our No. 1 duty we have as elected officials.”

Babin has sponsored legislation pausing refugee resettlement from “terrorism hot spots” to the U.S.

He was among 37 Republicans who tried, but failed, to attach language to a must-pass spending bill passed in September that would have blocked federal funding to refugees from Syria, other countries in the Middle East, and North Africa until national security officials could guarantee that terrorists cannot infiltrate the screening process.

“Trump has the authority to do what we in Congress could not do, and suspend this program immediately, particularly from Islamic terrorist hot spots,” Babin said. “I urge him to follow through on his campaign promise.”

Refugee and immigration experts say Trump can indeed use his executive powers immediately to keep Obama’s 110,000 refugee target number for this fiscal year, or reduce it. He can even pause the program completely, or restrict refugees from specific countries.

“Trump has the authority to resettle 110,000 like Obama or zero refugees,” said Matthew La Corte, an immigration policy analyst at the Niskanen Center. “That is his decision with consultation with Congress and the State Department.”

Trump can also limit other forms of legal immigration to the U.S., as he and his incoming administration have hinted they may try and do.

Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union” this weekend, Reince Priebus, the incoming White House chief of staff, said, “We’re going to temporarily suspend immigration from [certain countries or regions] until a better vetting system is put in place.”

Under U.S. law, the president has authority to use a proclamation to suspend the entry of “any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States [who] would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Over six decades ago, Congress, worried that communists would try and enter the U.S., authorized this executive authority as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Obama used this power in 2011 when he issued a presidential proclamation suspending the entry of “any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided, and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in” war crimes or other violations of humanitarian law.

But immigration experts say the power has not been applied as broadly as Trump has proposed.

For example, early in his campaign, Trump called for “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S.” He later removed the reference to religion and instead proposed barring people from regions of the world with a “proven history of terrorism” against the U.S. and the West.

“The statutory authority is clearly there for Trump to do what he said he would do,” said William Stock, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, in an interview with The Daily Signal. “But the power under the law has usually been used in a case-by-case manner, impacting narrow classes of people. The broader the assertion of the authority, the more likely a successful court challenge against it.”

Opponents of Trump’s proposals, including refugee advocates and national security experts, say that limiting U.S. assistance to the most vulnerable of immigrants is detrimental to the fight against terrorism.

They say that such a withdrawal from the world makes the case for terrorist groups such as the Islamic State that seek to turn Muslims against the West.

“We are at a pivotal moment in our country,” Appleby said. “If we start closing our doors, pulling up the drawbridge will undermine our national interests. It gives the extremists more power to demonize us and use it as a propaganda tool. We are looked at as a humanitarian leader, and if we withdraw that commitment, the rest of the world will follow and then we will really have a crisis on our hands.” (For more from the author of “How Trump Can Reshape US Policy Toward Refugees” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.