Posts

Conservative Icon Speaks out Against Paul Ryan

Republican nominee Donald Trump has recently come under fire for withholding an endorsement for current House Speaker Paul Ryan. Trump told The Washington Post Tuesday that, as far as endorsing Ryan, he was “not quite there yet.”

While many within the GOP criticized the move, conservative legend Phyllis Schlafly has spoken out with even stronger language than Trump against the speaker. In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, she called on all Americans to “get rid of him.”

Ryan’s opponent in the race, Paul Nehlen, is a businessman who has been rapidly catching up in the polls, as the Wisconsin primary closes in for next week.

The 91-year-old Schlafly had plenty of criticisms for the Speaker, primarily those that dealt with immigration, trade, and Ryan’s failure to represent the Republican electorate.

“Get rid of him! We don’t want anybody who believes in open borders,” she said. “Obviously Paul Ryan is not an ‘America first’ guy.”

Schlafly hopes for someone to replace Ryan and help defeat the “kingmakers” — that is, the political elite who have a donor class agenda. She has been particularly troubled by Ryan’s negative comments toward Trump.

Nehlen has said similar, saying previously that “Ryan’s repeated betrayals of the GOP nominee is beneath the dignity of the Speakers’ office and is morally disqualifying.” He predicted that if Ryan were to be re-elected, he would do his best to sabotage Trump even if he won the presidency.

In particular, Schlafly is against the philosophy of globalism. She has commended Trump on his “America First” motto, and explained that’s what the GOP really represents. In her interview with Breitbart, the conservative icon said she is hopeful of the future and believes Trump’s prowess and allegiance to the commonplace U.S. citizen will revive the Republican party. (For more from the author of “Conservative Icon Speaks out Against Paul Ryan” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Did Paul Ryan Intentionally Screw up Football Analogy to Justify #NeverTrump Cruz Supporters?

House Speaker Paul Ryan, who was slow to endorse Donald Trump for president, referenced the divide in his party and attempted a football analogy — that fell flat — to describe how the GOP can unify behind its nominee. . .

[At a breakfast in Texas Tuesday morning attended by numerous Cruz supporters, he] turned to college football, explaining how important it is when a team advances to a big postseason game, fans of other teams in its conference root for it to win. He discussed how intense the rivalries are in the Big 12, the conference of the Texas Longhorns and Texas A&M Aggies, whose supporters in the room whooped and hollered.

“Boy, those rivalries are tough, especially when the Big 12 was the Big 12 and you guys were at each other’s throats,” said Ryan. But he said, “When one of the teams advances to a big bowl game or a national championship, don’t you root for the Aggies if you are a Longhorn?”

The crowd booed no.

“You don’t? This whole riff was not worth it,” a deflated Ryan said with a smile. “My entire premise has just been obliterated.” (Read more from “Did Paul Ryan Intentionally Screw up Football Analogy to Justify #NeverTrump Cruz Supporters?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Paul Ryan Speaks out on Trump’s Choice of Pence for VP

House Speaker Paul Ryan fully supports Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s choice of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his running mate.

Ryan said in a statement on Friday there is “no better choice for our vice presidential candidate.”

The speaker added that Pence “comes from the heart of the conservative movement — and the heart of America.”

“We need someone who is steady and secure in his principles, someone who can cut through the noise and make a compelling case for conservatism. Mike Pence is that man,” he continued.

“He will help bring real change to Washington, and so I will do everything I can between now and November to help our ticket and our party win a national majority.”

Florida senator and former presidential candidate Marco Rubio echoed Ryan’s sentiment.

As reported by Western Journalism, Ryan held off endorsing Trump for a month after he became the presumptive nominee out of concern that he did not support some core conservative principles.

“I think what a lot of Republicans want to see is that we have a standard bearer that bears our standards and unifies all wings of the Republican Party,” Ryan said in early May.

After meeting with Trump on multiple occasions, Ryan came around and in early June endorsed him, writing in an op-ed: “Through these conversations, I feel confident he would help us turn the ideas in this agenda into laws to help improve people’s lives. That’s why I’ll be voting for him this fall.”

Fox News’ chief political anchor Bret Baier said of Trump’s choice of Pence on Friday, “He brings stability. He brings outreach to both social conservatives and the establishment in the Republican Party. … I guess what he brings most is a contrast to Donald Trump in campaign style, how he talks about things.” (For more from the author of “Paul Ryan Speaks out on Trump’s Choice of Pence for VP” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

INSIDER MEMO: Ex-Hill Staffer Takes on Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell

To: Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker Paul Ryan
From: Rachel Bovard, former policy director, U.S. Senate Steering Committee
Subject: Conservatives are right, eliminate the lame duck

Dear Leader McConnell & Speaker Ryan,

Do you ever feel like you’re having the same conversation over and over again when it comes to Congressional spending? It’s because you are.

Here we are, again, talking about the need to pass a Continuing Resolution (CR).

Despite all the lip service paid to “regular order,” “passing individual spending bills” and “getting back to work,” you and Senator McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 44%) have not been able to send a single appropriations bill to the President’s desk.

With one week to go before a two-month election year recess, moving forward with appropriations bills is not only futile, it’s actually wasting time that could be spent on other Republican priorities – like protecting religious liberty, instituting regulatory reform, combating the zika virus or, I don’t know, repealing Obamacare?

As always, the issue comes down to one of timing and of length. How long should the CR be extended? To the end of the year? Or into the new one?

Conservatives like Congressmen Dave Brat, R-Va. (A, 100%) and Mark Meadows, R-N.C. (A, 93%) are focused on extending this year’s spending levels into the March or April of next year, saving the spending decisions for the new Congress, and the new president. Such an extension also protects the CR from becoming an end-of-the-year grab bag of parochial projects, various extensions of unauthorized programs and higher spending.

It also effectively eliminates the “lame duck” session of Congress – the period of time after the election, when a bunch of members who have been defeated or decided to retire – can come back and make all kinds of spending decisions over which they’ll never face any accountability, all the while encouraged by a president who is also on his way out the door.

However, the House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky. (F, 34%) prefers a CR that extends to December, and loves lame duck sessions. Lame ducks provide Rogers and his appropriator colleagues maximum leverage to extract concessions out of their membership, and the opportunity to squeeze conservatives who demand lower spending levels or other policy changes. You may recall this as the annual December dance in Congress – members want to go home, and so do the staff, and because of that, they’ll pretty much vote for anything and bully anyone who stands between them and Christmas dinner. (Remember, there’s a reason that Obamacare was passed on Christmas Eve.)

The conservatives are right on this issue. The CR should be passed into the middle of next year, or beyond. This isn’t simply a matter of avoiding further spending increases, it’s a matter of good governance. It’s removing the ability of Members of Congress (and the president) who are leaving the Congress from making significant decisions over the nation’s fiscal future – one in which they will no longer play a part.

You wouldn’t let your ex come in and manage your bank account, right?

Then why would you let a Member of Congress who has just lost an election come back and extract all he can from the taxpayers till?

Stop trying to pass pointless appropriations bills, and instead direct your committee chairs to start crafting a CR that goes well into the new year. Even better, have it lower spending.

Doing so will make you the first House Speaker in a very long while who doesn’t cave to special interests, to the desire of departing Members to line their pockets, and who finally stands up for the taxpayer by effectively eliminating the lame duck session of Congress.

(For more from the author of “INSIDER MEMO: Ex-Hill Staffer Takes on Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Paul Ryan Caving on Gun Vote Is Exactly Why We Lose

Did you ever hear the saying “Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory?” Well that is what Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wis., did yesterday when he announced the House would vote next week on a measure that would prohibit people on terrorism watch lists from purchasing firearms.

The Hill is reporting that Ryan caved to the demands of Democrats and he is scheduling a gun control vote on the House floor when they come back from recess next week.

In a conference call Thursday, Ryan told rank-and-file Republicans that the House will take up a terrorism package that will include measures to disrupt radicalization and recruitment, as well as a provision to prevent suspected terrorists from purchasing guns, according to a source on the call.

Matt Kibbe of Conservative Review explains here why No Fly, No Buy = No Justice.

I recently wrote, “GOP Leadership: The Last Line of Defense Against Gun Control.” Although this will probably be an example of the House passing a bill that can’t pass the Senate because Senate Democrats will filibuster for more gun control, the political ramifications of repeatedly making your caucus walk the plank on damaging gun control bills is significant. Passing Democrat-lite bills always backfires and never provides real cover for members who will get hammered with 30-second ads on terrorists with guns.

The Senate Democrats have outsmarted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., by baiting him into having the Senate vote on six amendments to a bill that deals with this same issue. Now, Speaker Ryan has fallen into the same trap.

If the House runs with a proposal like the Cornyn Amendment or the Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Amendment that provided due process for people only after they are barred from purchasing a gun, they would be in violation of the Bill of Rights. First of all, the so-called “No Fly” list and “Terrorist Watch Lists” are mere lists compiled by the federal government that end up placing many people on these governments lists who don’t belong there.

Republicans should be pushing ideas that would look at immigration from nations that are incubators of terrorism, more so than focusing on gun control ideas that would not have prevented the Orlando shootings. Or they should simply not schedule politically damaging votes that will lead to legislation being passed that liberals will argue is a good first step, but not far enough to make the Second Amendment a dead letter of constitutional law.

(For more from the author of “Paul Ryan Caving on Gun Vote Is Exactly Why We Lose” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

George Will Quits GOP Over Trump’s Judge Comments, Paul Ryan’s Trump Endorsement

Conservative writer George Will is no longer a Republican, and he says it’s all Paul Ryan’s fault.

During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Will said the last straw for him was that Ryan, the Speaker of the House, was willing to endorse Trump even after his statements attacking judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is handling the Trump University case. Trump has suggested Curiel is biased against him because he has Mexican heritage.

“After Trump went after the ‘Mexican’ judge from northern Indiana, then Paul Ryan endorsed him, I decided that in fact this was not my party anymore,” Will said during his appearance. “I changed my registration to unaffiliated 23 days ago.”

Will compared his defection to Ronald Reagan’s decision to leave the Democratic Party, saying that it was Republicans who had changed, not him.

“I left [the party] for the same reason I joined it in 1964, when I voted for Barry Goldwater,” he said. “I joined it because I was a conservative, and I leave it for the same reason: I’m a conservative,.”

Will first said he was leaving the Republican Party Friday, during a Federalist Society luncheon, but his comments Sunday add further context to his decision. Will has been heavily critical of Trump throughout the nomination process, and he has even written that it would be advantageous for Trump to lose in a 50-state landslide.

Trump himself said Sunday morning that Will would not be missed via Twitter:

Will responded on Fox News Sunday by calling Trump clueless on every topic.

“He has an advantage on me, because he can say everything he knows about any subject in 140 characters and I can’t,” he said. (For more from the author of “George Will Quits GOP Over Trump’s Judge Comments, Paul Ryan’s Trump Endorsement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Paul Ryan Under Pressure to Outflank Democrats, Not Just Scold Them

A visibly irritated Speaker Paul Ryan chastised Democrats on Thursday morning for hijacking the House floor, and promised to bring the legislature back to regular order shortly.

The House’s top Republican criticized Democrats for pulling a “a political stunt, a fundraising stunt.”

How the GOP will restore order remains an open and difficult question, though. So far, other than Ryan’s lecture for Democrats, Republicans haven’t developed an answer.

Around 11:25 a.m. Wednesday, the minority party seized control of the House floor, refusing to leave and staging a 1960s-style sit-in to demand a vote on gun control 10 days after the Orlando terrorist attack. Republicans in turn took up a controversial package to fight the Zika virus rather than engaging with Democrats.

Around 3 a.m. Thursday, Ryan brought to the floor a partially funded, $1.1 billion bill to combat Zika. It passed mostly along party lines, 239-171. Only two Republicans opposed the measure, even though conservatives had said they’d oppose any bill that didn’t use unspent money dedicated to fighting the Ebola virus to eradicate the new disease.

Then the House adjourned a day early for lawmakers’ recess.

Ryan promised to prevent another ruckus like the one Wednesday night, when shouting Democrats refused to come to order on the floor.

“I think it sets a very dangerous precedent,” Ryan said. “We are reviewing everything right now as to what happened and how to make sure we can bring order to the chaos. This is the people’s house and [Democrats] are descending into chaos. I don’t think this should be a very proud moment for democracy, or for the people who staged these stunts.”

After Ryan’s press conference, Democrats—who had been chanting “no bill, no break” for almost 24 hours—promptly left the floor around 1 p.m., pledging to return when the House comes back in session July 5.

“A fire has been lit across our nation,” Rep. Joe Crowley of New York, vice chairman of the Democratic caucus, said. “It’s a new day in Washington, it’s a new way to fight as well.”

Perhaps disorientated from a night of little sleep, the chairmen of the three biggest Republican caucuses seemed unsure how to respond.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, chairman of the Freedom Caucus, told The Daily Signal he thinks the House should focus on terrorism, not gun control.

In particular, Jordan said he wants the House to take up a bill it passed last year to tighten background checks for Iraqi and Syrian refugees. The Senate didn’t consider the bill.

“So we’re pushing our leadership to bring those sorts of things to the floor,” Jordan said.

Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, credited Ryan for “taking a measured approach” to Democrats’ extreme tactics. He told The Daily Signal that, like Jordan, he doesn’t believe “guns are the issue.”

To turn the debate back toward terrorism and “put the Democrats in a tight spot,” he proposed forcing a vote on a House resolution affirming the Second Amendment.

Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., chairman of the Tuesday Group, told The Daily Signal he plans on investigating Democrat violations of decorum and House rules.

“Adopting tactics used by fringe groups like Occupy Wall Street is counterproductive,” Dent said, “and will not help or lead to any sort of consensus or action on firearms.”

Reviewing the play-by-play of the night before, Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., said Republicans should’ve seen the sit-in coming.

“If we would’ve anticipated it, which we should’ve, we could’ve made some better moves,” Brat told The Daily Signal, adding that rehashing Republican strategy amounted to little more than “Monday morning quarterbacking now.”

Several conservative congressional staffers voiced similar frustration with Republican leadership. They told The Daily Signal that GOP leaders failed to counter the Democrats’ protest with legislation that shifted the focus back to terrorism or in defense of the Second Amendment. They said Republicans now face a similar scenario upon their return from recess.

Legislative alternatives weren’t the only option for Republicans. They could have followed the example Democrats set in 2008 after adjourning for August recess: When Republicans stayed on the floor to protest lack of action on rising gas prices, then-Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., killed the microphones and lights. Pelosi’s party attempted to remove reporters from the press gallery.

Ryan said he isn’t ready to shut off the lights yet. Instead, he seemed to yield control of the floor to Democrats, saying they “can talk all they want.”

Now Democrats have the Republican conference on the run, a top GOP aide told The Daily Signal. Ryan and the rest of leadership didn’t squash the Democrat sit-in, the staffer said, because they’re afraid of the immediate political blowback and long-term campaign consequences.

“Members fear political votes,” he said. “They fear the ads. They fear the liberal grassroots in their district mobilizing a populist message.”

Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., interpreted the sit-in as part of an ongoing campaign by Democrats to throw the House off track.

Buck pointed to controversial policy riders from Democrats—including amendments regarding transgender bathrooms and Confederate flags—in addition to their sit-in as evidence that, in his words, “Democrats are hell-bent on giving Paul Ryan a black eye” and “have no interest in governing.” (For more from the author of “Paul Ryan Under Pressure to Outflank Democrats, Not Just Scold Them” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Paul Ryan’s Treason

In an awkward interview with the Huffington Post, House Speaker Paul Ryan threatened to sue Donald Trump if he were to ban Muslim immigration or build a border wall with Mexico. Considering the current track record of suing Obama over abuses of power, this is little more than a confession of impotence.

And yet it’s deeply troubling that a top Republican is willing to go to such lengths to fight for Muslim migration or for that matter illegal immigration in general.

Paul Ryan insists that he will continue to “speak up in defense of our principles, in defense of not just our party’s principles, but our country’s principles”, but it’s telling that these principles seem to involve illegal immigration and Muslim migration.

Since when are either of these representative of our party’s principles or our country’s principles?
And yet they are indeed core principles for Paul Ryan.

Paul Ryan had complained that a Muslim ban was, “not reflective of our principles not just as a party but as a country.” Like Obama, Ryan speaks of “our principles” without actually referencing specifics. While a constitutional conservative, speaks in terms of the Constitution, Ryan uses the “values” language of the left which references no laws, only general sentiments attributed to no specific law or document.

Though Paul Ryan claims that he wants to maintain the traditional separation of powers, and quotes the exact basis for it, he seems reluctant to do so when he claims that a Muslim ban would be wrong. Ryan knows quite well that his opposition to a Muslim migration ban is not based on the law. Like his support for illegal alien amnesty, it is based on the values construct of the left and not on the Constitution.

Paul Ryan was a longtime supporter of illegal alien amnesty. Back when amnesty was still being disguised as “immigration reform”, Ryan was a key player in pushing it forward. Ryan was so notorious for his support for illegal alien amnesty that he had to promise not to move forward on it under Obama in order to gain enough support to become Speaker. And yet despite this Ryan continues to sound amnesty notes.

Like most of the left, Paul Ryan describes illegal aliens as “undocumented immigrants.” Last year, he once again endorsed some measure of legalization for illegal aliens. Even now his website’s top 5 issues includes a call for “immigration reform” which remains a euphemism for illegal alien amnesty.

As is typical of stealth amnesty bids, up front are a raft of security measures and at the very back is a plan for more guest workers and finally a call to “give people a chance to get right with the law”.

That is yet another amnesty euphemism.

Paul Ryan’s amnesty pledge expires when Obama leaves office. That means that, if we take his website at its word, he would like to push amnesty measures under the next administration. A few years ago he was anticipating a move on “immigration reform” in 2017. And so it is not surprising that he remains less than fond of any calls to crack down on illegal immigration.

While Paul Ryan has currently been fairly quiet about amnesty, there was a time when he was one of the more vocal national legislators throwing out amnesty talking points about a “broken immigration system” and “de facto amnesty”. Ryan was certainly not the only prominent Republican to climb on board the amnesty express, but he remained aboard it long after it was leaving the station.

Despite the general shift in the GOP, there is no sign that Ryan has abandoned it. Instead he views Obama’s divisive tone as having poisoned the wall on amnesty. He’s still the same politician who complained two years ago, “People say, ‘amnesty!’ No, it’s taking a problem that’s intractable, that’s been around forever, and trying to fix it in a way that as best guarantees as you can that we’re not going to be in the same [situation] ten years from now.”

Trump’s victory has made it quite clear that Ryan’s view of amnesty, once mainstream in the GOP, is now on the outs. If Trump were to win a national election, then the country would have ratified a rejection of amnesty. The thing that Ryan once fought so hard for, turning illegal aliens into guest workers, was thoroughly rejected by Republican voters.

But there is no sign that Ryan is willing to give up or give in. And that is the problem.

Paul Ryan insists that a ban on Muslim migration would be wrong because, “Muslims are our partners.” That would come as news to all the Americans killed at home and abroad by “our partners” from Saudi Arabia to Muslim refugees and terrorists operating in the United States. And yet even after the latest Muslim terrorist attack in Orlando, Paul Ryan shows no sign of being willing to reconsider his position.

And that’s not surprising.

Paul Ryan doesn’t represent any kind of national Republican consensus. Instead he is a vocal and effective spokesman for the point of view of his backers and sponsors. That is why Ryan not only supports illegal alien amnesty, but also backs “sentencing reform”, a euphemism for freeing criminals.

Despite the anti-establishment election, Paul Ryan continues to represent a particular strain of elitist establishment politics which is concerned with the advocacy of very specific and specifically destructive policies without regard to their consequences, whether it involves criminals, illegal aliens or Muslim terrorists. These principles are often put forward as conservative, but in fact they are a particular species of libertarianism that has very little regard for national interests and none for their victims.

Ryan’s support for illegal immigration and Muslim migration is treasonous. And yet the deeper treason is his treason to the ordinary Republicans whose views and interests he simply does not seem to care about. This is a problem that did not begin with this election and is not likely to end with it.

And yet it is a problem that must be confronted.

The GOP came dangerously close to endorsing amnesty because special interest agendas mattered more than national interests and community interests. And we are not out of the woods yet.

Paul Ryan represents everything wrong with allowing a handful of special interests to set the agenda for the GOP. The agenda has been repudiated at the polls, but it will take far more work to repudiate it in the GOP. (For more from the author of “Paul Ryan’s Treason” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

House Speaker Paul Ryan Makes the Trump Announcement Everyone’s Been Waiting For

Saying he and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump “have more common ground than disagreement,” House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., announced Thursday that he will support Trump.

In the wake of Trump winning the required number of delegates to secure the Republican nomination, Ryan, who has differed with Trump on issues such as immigration, said last month he was “not ready” to endorse Trump.

The two later met. After what was proclaimed a good meeting, the Trump campaign had indicated a formal statement supporting Trump would be forthcoming.

Ryan issued his statement supporting Trump in the form of a guest column in The Gazette, the paper serving Ryan’s hometown of Janesville, Wis.

In the column, Ryan said the goal in the 2016 elections has been to show what Republicans are supporting, not just what they oppose. That’s why, he wrote, House Republicans have been adopting a policy agenda that represents ideas to move America forward.

“To enact these ideas, we need a Republican president willing to sign them into law. That’s why, when he sealed the nomination, I could not offer my support for Donald Trump before discussing policies and basic principles,” Ryan wrote. “As I said from the start, my goal has been to unite the party so we can win in the fall. And if we’re going to unite, it has to be over ideas.

“Donald Trump and I have talked at great length about things such as the proper role of the executive and fundamental principles such as the protection of life. The list of potential Supreme Court nominees he released after our first meeting was very encouraging.”

Ryan said “the House policy agenda” has been the main subject the two men have discussed.

“We’ve talked about how important these reforms are to saving our country. And we’ve talked about how, by focusing on issues that unite Republicans, we can work together to heal the fissures developed through the primary,” Ryan wrote.

“Through these conversations, I feel confident he would help us turn the ideas in this agenda into laws to help improve people’s lives. That’s why I’ll be voting for him this fall,” he wrote.

Ryan said support does not mean stifling dissent.

“It’s no secret that he and I have our differences. I won’t pretend otherwise. And when I feel the need to, I’ll continue to speak my mind. But the reality is, on the issues that make up our agenda, we have more common ground than disagreement,” he wrote.

Ryan said the coming election is “not just a choice of two people, but of two visions for America. And House Republicans are helping shape that Republican vision by offering a bold policy agenda, by offering a better way ahead.”

“Donald Trump can help us make it a reality,” Ryan wrote. (For more from the author of “House Speaker Paul Ryan Makes the Trump Announcement Everyone’s Been Waiting For” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Paul Ryan Says U.S. Must Admit Muslim Migrants, Sends Kids to Private School That Screens Them Out

After the Paris terrorist attack, House Speaker Paul Ryan declared that the United States cannot turn away the hundreds of thousands of Islamist migrants now being approved for visas to enter the United States. Ryan declared that it is not “appropriate” to consider the religious attitudes of would-be migrants seeking admission.

After the San Bernardino terrorist attack, Ryan echoed President Obama in condemning what was described as Donald Trump’s “religious test.” However, a Breitbart News investigation now reveals that while Paul Ryan wants no ‘religious test’ for who gets admitted into America, Ryan sends his children to a private school that uses a “religious test” in its admissions process.

Ryan sends his children to a Catholic school connected to the parish where he was an altar boy as a child.

Breitbart News reached out to the school as a perspective applicant and obtained a copy of the school’s 2015-2016 registration papers and tuition contract. The document inquires specifically into the applicant’s religious background — in particular, it asks whether the applicant is a parishioner at the associated Catholic parish. The school recruits through the parish by offering a tuition discount to those who have been baptized and are members of the parish. (Read more from “Paul Ryan Says U.S. Must Admit Muslim Migrants, Sends Kids to Private School That Screens Them Out” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.