DeSantis Cheers Brenda Snipes’ Resignation, Says Broward County ‘Dropped the Ball’

/in , , , , , /by

Republican Florida Gov.-elect Ron DeSantis appeared on “Fox & Friends” Monday to applaud the resignation of Broward County Election Supervisor Brenda Snipes and said there was “no way as governor that [he] was going to let her preside over another election.”

“Obviously we’re going to have to address some of the problems with the election administration in places like Broward and Palm Beach County,” DeSantis said.

dcnf-logo

“I think it’s good that Brenda Snipes has submitted her resignation.”

DeSantis claimed he would not have let Snipes continue under his administration and said she “dropped the ball” during the statewide recount.

“There was no way as governor that I was going to let her preside over another election down there after all the problems that they had,” he continued. “So we had 65 counties do a good job. We had two that dropped the ball. We want to make sure all 67 counties do these elections in a fair way.”

Snipes could have faced an “embarrassing suspension from office at the hands of either Gov. Rick Scott or his likely successor, Ron DeSantis,” according to Politico.

Host Ainsley Earhardt asked DeSantis what the next step in the process is and he said either he or outgoing Republican Gov. Rick Scott would appoint her replacement after she officially leaves office.

“It depends on when her resignation is effective. I heard it was going to be effective sometime in early January, about the time I’m being sworn in. So, yeah, then that will fall to me to appoint her replacement. If she has resigned immediately, then Gov. Scott would have a window to appoint it before he leaves office,” DeSantis said.

COLUMN BY

Nick Givas

Nick Givas is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @NGivasDC

RELATED ARTICLES:

School Choice Moms’ Tipped the Governor’s Florida Race: DeSantis owes his win to unexpected support from minority women.

The “Found Ballot” Fraud

Palm Beach County Techs Tell Tales Of “Total Incompetence” In Operating Voting Machines

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: SMG/ZUMA Press/Newscom. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.Nick Givas is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Indulgences for Hollywood as Movie Studio Buys Gun Offsets

/in , , , , /by

In 2014, Hollywood movie mogul and fierce NRA critic Harvey Weinstein appeared to acknowledge the movie industry might be able to have a positive impact by reducing its glorification of criminal violence. Weinstein explained,

I have to choose movies that aren’t violent or as violent as they used to be… I know for me personally … I can’t continue to do that. The change starts here. It has already. For me, I can’t do it. I can’t make one movie and say this is what I want for my kids and then just go out and be a hypocrite.

To his credit, Weinstein eventually made good on his promise. Following a widely reported sexual harassment scandal, in 2018 The Weinstein Company declared bankruptcy.

In the meantime, the rest of Hollywood has picked up the slack by continuing to churn out depictions of graphic violence. As Weinstein knew, the glorification of violence sells. So one enterprising film company sought to develop a way to quell their moral pangs while continuing the on-screen carnage.

According to an October 25 press release, startup studio Level Forward (a partnership between gun control activist and Disney heiress Abigail Disney and Killer Content) will now only produce content that is “gun neutral.”

The press release explained,

For each prop gun that appears in a production, financiers and producers will add a “GUN NEUTRAL” budget line item to cover the cost of destroying real-world guns and to invest in community-based arts programs targeting youth in the most gun violence-ridden communities. An average of $15 per prop gun will be charged.

As part of the program, Level Forward has pledged the money to destroy 10 guns for every prop gun that appears in one of their productions. And Level Forward does not appear to be toning down the on-screen violence due to budgetary concerns. In its first three Gun Neutral films, 166 prop firearms were used, resulting in a pledge to destroy 1,660 real firearms.

The Gun Neutral concept will remind some of carbon offsets. Carbon offset policy attempts to apply market forces to reduce carbon emissions and can be government mandated or voluntary. In the U.S. in the mid-2000s it became fashionable for elites to purchase carbon offsets to repent for their jet setting high-consumption lifestyles. Critics charged that this hypocritical approach to environmentalism was akin to the medieval practice of buying indulgences for sins.

However, perhaps a comparison to the medieval Catholic Church isn’t fair to the church in this instance.

In order to carry out the Gun Neutral program, Level Forward has partnered with the group One Less Gun. On the One Less Guns website, visitors are told that for a donation of £5 (about $6.50) they too can assure one gun is destroyed. At an average of $15 per prop gun, Level Forward appears to be paying $1.50 per gun purported to be destroyed.

We’re not sure if the Catholic Church ever offered a bulk rate on indulgences.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jamie Lee Curtis Made Sure ‘Halloween’ Only Used Firearms for Self-Defense and Aligned With Her Views on Gun Control

Hollywood hates guns, except in movies like ‘Peppermint’

Gun control advocates turn to Hollywood for messaging help

President Trump’s Proclamation on Mass Migration

/in , , , , , , /by

The whole idea of Democratic operatives’ well funded caravans is to overwhelm the U.S. asylum system and turn thousands of illegal aliens loose into our country in order to become “undocumented Democrats” and fraudulently vote in elections.

President Trump’s new rule on asylum fixes a dangerous loophole.

President Trump signed a presidential proclamation (below) that prevents migrants from claiming asylum unless they do so at an official border crossing. Despite pushback from the leftist organizations, like the ACLU, the order merely directs people to one of more than 300 ports of entry to legally present their asylum claims, which will be evaluated in a fair and orderly process. Heritage experts say this new rule will fix a loophole that has been used to overwhelm the immigration system, destabilize the border region, and make millions for human trafficking cartels.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What Congress Can Do Now to Fix Immigration Enforcement

REPORT: Noncitizens, Voting Violations and U.S. Elections

Heritage’s latest report on how to fix immigration law and enforcement.

‘It’s Your Right to Go to the US’: What I Saw When I Visited the Migrant Caravan

Presidential Proclamation Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States

IMMIGRATION Issued on: November 9, 2018

The United States expects the arrival at the border between the United States and Mexico (southern border) of a substantial number of aliens primarily from Central America who appear to have no lawful basis for admission into our country. They are traveling in large, organized groups through Mexico and reportedly intend to enter the United States unlawfully or without proper documentation and to seek asylum, despite the fact that, based on past experience, a significant majority will not be eligible for or be granted that benefit. Many entered Mexico unlawfully — some with violence — and have rejected opportunities to apply for asylum and benefits in Mexico. The arrival of large numbers of aliens will contribute to the overloading of our immigration and asylum system and to the release of thousands of aliens into the interior of the United States. The continuing and threatened mass migration of aliens with no basis for admission into the United States through our southern border has precipitated a crisis and undermines the integrity of our borders. I therefore must take immediate action to protect the national interest, and to maintain the effectiveness of the asylum system for legitimate asylum seekers who demonstrate that they have fled persecution and warrant the many special benefits associated with asylum.

In recent weeks, an average of approximately 2,000 inadmissible aliens have entered each day at our southern border. In Fiscal Year 2018 overall, 124,511 aliens were found inadmissible at ports of entry on the southern border, while 396,579 aliens were apprehended entering the United States unlawfully between such ports of entry. The great number of aliens who cross unlawfully into the United States through the southern border consumes tremendous resources as the Government seeks to surveil, apprehend, screen, process, and detain them.

Aliens who enter the United States unlawfully or without proper documentation and are subject to expedited removal may avoid being promptly removed by demonstrating, during an initial screening process, a credible fear of persecution or torture. Approximately 2 decades ago, most aliens deemed inadmissible at a port of entry or apprehended after unlawfully entering the United States through the southern border were single adults who were promptly returned to Mexico, and very few asserted a fear of return. Since then, however, there has been a massive increase in fear-of-persecution or torture claims by aliens who enter the United States through the southern border. The vast majority of such aliens are found to satisfy the credible-fear threshold, although only a fraction of the claimants whose claims are adjudicated ultimately qualify for asylum or other protection. Aliens found to have a credible fear are often released into the interior of the United States, as a result of a lack of detention space and a variety of other legal and practical difficulties, pending adjudication of their claims in a full removal proceeding in immigration court. The immigration adjudication process often takes years to complete because of the growing volume of claims and because of the need to expedite proceedings for detained aliens. During that time, many released aliens fail to appear for hearings, do not comply with subsequent orders of removal, or are difficult to locate and remove.

Members of family units pose particular challenges. The Federal Government lacks sufficient facilities to house families together. Virtually all members of family units who enter the United States through the southern border, unlawfully or without proper documentation, and that are found to have a credible fear of persecution, are thus released into the United States. Against this backdrop of near-assurance of release, the number of such aliens traveling as family units who enter through the southern border and claim a credible fear of persecution has greatly increased. And large numbers of family units decide to make the dangerous and unlawful border crossing with their children.

The United States has a long and proud history of offering protection to aliens who are fleeing persecution and torture and who qualify under the standards articulated in our immigration laws, including through our asylum system and the Refugee Admissions Program. But our system is being overwhelmed by migration through our southern border. Crossing the border to avoid detection and then, if apprehended, claiming a fear of persecution is in too many instances an avenue to near-automatic release into the interior of the United States. Once released, such aliens are very difficult to remove. An additional influx of large groups of aliens arriving at once through the southern border would add tremendous strain to an already taxed system, especially if they avoid orderly processing by unlawfully crossing the southern border.

The entry of large numbers of aliens into the United States unlawfully between ports of entry on the southern border is contrary to the national interest, and our law has long recognized that aliens who seek to lawfully enter the United States must do so at ports of entry. Unlawful entry puts lives of both law enforcement and aliens at risk. By contrast, entry at ports of entry at the southern border allows for orderly processing, which enables the efficient deployment of law enforcement resources across our vast southern border.

Failing to take immediate action to stem the mass migration the United States is currently experiencing and anticipating would only encourage additional mass unlawful migration and further overwhelming of the system.

Other presidents have taken strong action to prevent mass migration. In Proclamation 4865 of September 29, 1981 (High Seas Interdiction of Illegal Aliens), in response to an influx of Haitian nationals traveling to the United States by sea, President Reagan suspended the entry of undocumented aliens from the high seas and ordered the Coast Guard to intercept such aliens before they reached United States shores and to return them to their point of origin. In Executive Order 12807 of May 24, 1992 (Interdiction of Illegal Aliens), in response to a dramatic increase in the unlawful mass migration of Haitian nationals to the United States, President Bush ordered additional measures to interdict such Haitian nationals and return them to their home country. The Supreme Court upheld the legality of those measures in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993).

I am similarly acting to suspend, for a limited period, the entry of certain aliens in order to address the problem of large numbers of aliens traveling through Mexico to enter our country unlawfully or without proper documentation. I am tailoring the suspension to channel these aliens to ports of entry, so that, if they enter the United States, they do so in an orderly and controlled manner instead of unlawfully. Under this suspension, aliens entering through the southern border, even those without proper documentation, may, consistent with this proclamation, avail themselves of our asylum system, provided that they properly present themselves for inspection at a port of entry. In anticipation of a large group of aliens arriving in the coming weeks, I am directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to commit additional resources to support our ports of entry at the southern border to assist in processing those aliens — and all others arriving at our ports of entry — as efficiently as possible.

But aliens who enter the United States unlawfully through the southern border in contravention of this proclamation will be ineligible to be granted asylum under the regulation promulgated by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security that became effective earlier today. Those aliens may, however, still seek other forms of protection from persecution or torture. In addition, this limited suspension will facilitate ongoing negotiations with Mexico and other countries regarding appropriate cooperative arrangements to prevent unlawful mass migration to the United States through the southern border. Thus, this proclamation is also necessary to manage and conduct the foreign affairs of the United States effectively.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), respectively) hereby find that, absent the measures set forth in this proclamation, the entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions. I therefore hereby proclaim the following:

Section 1. Suspension and Limitation on Entry. The entry of any alien into the United States across the international boundary between the United States and Mexico is hereby suspended and limited, subject to section 2 of this proclamation. That suspension and limitation shall expire 90 days after the date of this proclamation or the date on which an agreement permits the United States to remove aliens to Mexico in compliance with the terms of section 208(a)(2)(A) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(A)), whichever is earlier.

Sec. 2. Scope and Implementation of Suspension and Limitation on Entry. (a) The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall apply only to aliens who enter the United States after the date of this proclamation.

(b) The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to any alien who enters the United States at a port of entry and properly presents for inspection, or to any lawful permanent resident of the United States.

(c) Nothing in this proclamation shall limit an alien entering the United States from being considered for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)) or protection pursuant to the regulations promulgated under the authority of the implementing legislation regarding the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, or limit the statutory processes afforded to unaccompanied alien children upon entering the United States under section 279 of title 6, United States Code, and section 1232 of title 8, United States Code.

(d) No later than 90 days after the date of this proclamation, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall jointly submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, a recommendation on whether an extension or renewal of the suspension or limitation on entry in section 1 of this proclamation is in the interests of the United States.

Sec. 3. Interdiction. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with the Government of Mexico regarding appropriate steps — consistent with applicable law and the foreign policy, national security, and public-safety interests of the United States — to address the approach of large groups of aliens traveling through Mexico with the intent of entering the United States unlawfully, including efforts to deter, dissuade, and return such aliens before they physically enter United States territory through the southern border.

Sec. 4. Severability. It is the policy of the United States to enforce this proclamation to the maximum extent possible to advance the interests of the United States. Accordingly:

(a) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this proclamation and the application of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby; and

(b) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid because of the failure to follow certain procedures, the relevant executive branch officials shall implement those procedural requirements to conform with existing law and with any applicable court orders.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ninth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand eighteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-third.

DONALD J. TRUMP

EDITOR NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Don Ross III on Unsplash.

How Goes Maine, So Goes the Nation

/in , , , , /by

$1.3 Million was spent to influence Maine voters on the the issue of Ranked Choice Voting. The bill passed and Maine become the first State in the Nation to institute this voting process. Now before we go further, let’s talk about what Ranked Choice Voting is…

Ranked choice voting is a method of ranking the candidates of your choice in order of your preference. In order to be elected to office, the candidate must reach 50 plus 1 percent of the vote. The candidate who reaches that mark wins the race. But what if it is a closely contested race and no candidate reaches the 50 plus 1 threshold to claim victory. That’s where Ranked Choice comes into play.

In the recent 2nd District race for Congress here in Maine, the two major candidates were Republican Congressman, Bruce Poliquin and his Democratic challenger, Jared Golden. Neither candidate, however,  reached the 50 plus1 percent of the vote to be declared winner. So in Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) we then turn to the “also ran” candidates to settle  the issue.

Previously, those votes cast for the candidates that were mathematically eliminated from the race in the first round of ballot counts were just thrown out, but now those ballots will be counted in a second round of counting when no candidate reaches the 50 plus 1 threshold. If you voted for one of the lesser candidates that was eliminated, your vote on that ballot for your second choice will now be added to the vote tally of that individual. This will keep going until one of the candidates reaches the 50 plus 1 threshold to win.

So let’s take a race, as was the case here in Maine, with four candidates on the ballot: A Republican, Democrat, Progressive and Independent. Progressives and Independents are by and large, liberal, so If you voted for the Progressive or Independent as your first choice….who do you suppose your second choice is likely to be?  The Democrat of course, and so your second choice for office, the democrat, will get your vote!  So is RCV fair? I think not. It is a system of voting that is designed to stack the deck against a Conservative candidate.

In the recent mid term elections, Maine’s Republican Congressman, Bruce Poliquin was challenged by Democrat, Jared Golden who is backed by Pelosi and the far left. Liberal organizations pumped millions into Golden’s campaign in hopes of unseating the Republican incumbent. This was the most expensive Congressional Campaign in the Country and keep in mind that Maine’s population is only around a million people. Poliquin received more votes than Jared Golden in the election. Sadly, though, that wasn’t enough to win because remember, the candidate needs 50 plus 1 percent of the vote to be declared winner. Neither of these candidates received the required 50 plus 1 percent of the vote and so the remaining 23,013 votes were assigned to the voters second choice candidate. This placed Golden over the 50 plus 1 percent of the required votes needed to be declared winner. Even though, after the votes were counted, the incumbent Republican Congressman, Bruce Poliquin received more votes, Golden received more second choice votes on the ballot than did Poliquin and…presto, Jared Golden wins and becomes the new Congressman representing Maine’s 2nd district.

Added questions to this skewed voting process come in the form of Article 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing (sic) Senators.”

The sticking point seems to come from the word, “Manner,” and what the Founders meant by this word. I would argue that they were clearly referring to the way in which the electorate would show their support, either by a show of hands, or written ballot. I do not believe that ever in their wildest dreams would these learned and astute men who so meticulously hammered out the greatest Republic the wold has ever known, concoct a methodology of choosing a candidate that was so convoluted. They meant to give each and every American a voice and how he chose to use that voice was up to him; one man, one vote.

Bruce Poliquin has filed suit to challenge the Constitutionality of RCV and to retain his seat in the Congress. The case is set to be heard in Federal Court here in Bangor on December 4th. The judge has promised a decision before the December 14 deadline when all certified votes for office must be submitted to Congress by Maine’s Secretary of State. I do not have a great deal of faith that RCV will be overturned in Federal court. The result of this election should be placed on hold and the case fast tracked to the Supreme Court and the decision made there on its Constitutionality.

Remember Maine’s Motto is “Dirigo,” or “I lead.”

“How Goes Maine….So Goes the Nation!!!”

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Mercedes Mehling on Unsplash.

The President MUST Appeal The Acosta Ruling

/in , , , , , /by

Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, verbally ordered the President of the United States to reinstate CNN Reporter Jim Acosta’s hard pass to access the White House on Friday.  The judge, who sits in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, has not posted his ruling yet, forcing us, at least temporarily, to rely on press reports for details.

Predictably, CNN has called the ruling a huge victory for the First Amendment.  However, according to numerous press reports, Judge Kelly took issue, not with any alleged affronts upon the First Amendment, but rather, the process used to revoke Acosta’s hard pass.  According to one news outlet, the judge said that Sarah Huckabee Sander’s “belated efforts at [answering Acosta’s concerns] were hardly sufficient to satisfy due process.”  Additionally, according to Breitbart, the judge found that in creating press conferences, the President created a public forum to which limited due process rights attach.

I disagree.  Contrary to Judge Kelly’s view, the White House press conference is an internal working of the executive branch done solely for a public relations and communications purpose and at the pleasure of the President of the United States. As such, and as reported previously by The Federalist Pages, when the Court interferes with how the President conducts his press conferences, it is essentially intruding into the rightful powers of the President of the United States, as Chief Executive, in conducting the internal dealings of the executive branch.

Seen from this angle, which is the dominant issue in this matter, it becomes clear that the President must zealously pursue this case for the sake of the preservation of the autonomy of the executive branch.

Let’s be clear.  There is no finality to Friday’s ruling.  

The judge’s order was the implementation of a temporary restraining order against the President until such time that the case actually goes to trial.  Strategically, the President now has a couple of opportunities available to him.  First, he can let the case play out at the District Court, and if the judge should rule against him at the trial, he can appeal.  Alternatively, the President may appeal the temporary injunction as a matter of law, right now.  Either way, it is imperative that the President take the case to the next level. If he does so, it is likely that a higher court would not accept the invitation for the judiciary to intrude into the inner workings of another branch of government.  If argued as a matter of separation of powers and the comity between the branches of government, it is likely the district court’s position will not be upheld.  If it does, I am equally confident the Supreme Court will take this case because of the constitutional implications it carries to the inner workings of government, and will reverse it.

Make no mistake, although this case is being painted with a brush held by Acosta and the media, it actually represents, yet another small but significant intrusion onto the proper balance of powers; an intrusion with which the Framers, except for John Marshall, would be in total disagreement.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by rawpixel on Unsplash.

Judge’s Ruling Adds Thousands More Votes In Florida Recount

/in , , , , , /by

In a victory for the campaign hopes of U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, a federal judge has ordered all of Florida’s elections officials to give nearly 4,000 voters — or more maybe 7,000, no one is sure — whose ballots were rejected over mismatched signatures until Saturday to fix the problem and for their votes to count.

Judge Mark Walker ruled early today that apparently all of the state’s elections offices have wrongly, or unconstitutionally, applied the state law governing how voters can fix rejected signatures on absentee and provisional ballots. There were a known 3,700 ballots rejected in the Midterm election after canvassing boards determined that the signature on a mail-in or provisional ballot did not match the signature the state had on file for that voter.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson’s campaign sued last week to invalidate the signature rejection process, amid a series of lawsuits attempting to change Florida voting laws through the courts and push more votes into the final tallies.

Judge Walker issued a 34-page order granting a temporary injunction at the request of the Nelson campaign, and directed the state’s supervisors of elections to gives these voters until 5 p.m. Saturday to “cure” the problem.

The law had given voters had until the day before the election to fix the signature issue. So this ruling does change state law for this election, as it allows votes to be counted after the law said they cannot be.

If these are all Democrat votes, and most of them likely will be, they alone would not be enough to flip the two major elections. But they would get it closer.

In the Senate race, Republican Gov. Rick Scott is leading Nelson by 12,562 votes, or 0.15 percent. In the Governor’s race, Republican Ron DeSantis is up 0.41 percent, or 33,684 votes, on Democrat Andrew Gillum.

However, and this is a really big caveat, it isn’t really known the total number of ballots that were rejected or mismatched signatures. Only 45 of Florida’s 67 counties had provided totals to the court on mismatched signatures during Walker’s hearing on the lawsuit last week. So it will likely be higher, but how much higher, no one knows. Some have predicted it could be 7,000.

Scott’s campaign is appealing Walker’s order. But that does not seem likely to change anything at this point.

Further, Judge Walker is scheduled to hear more lawsuits, including a challenge by Nelson to the state’s procedures for counting overvotes and undervotes. The Nelson campaign is confident they will close the gap through the overvote and undervote process, and more so if they can change the process.

The Nelson campaign is also suing to extend today’s deadline for Florida’s elections supervisors to get their recount totals to Tallahassee.

RELATED ARTICLES:

In Palm Beach County, Democrats Argue To Count Votes Cast By Non-Citizens

Republican Rick Scott Gains Votes in Florida Recount, Calls on Democrat Nelson To Concede

Rubio Exposes The Blatant Voter Fraud Democrats Committed In Florida

Florida Counties Abandon Recount As Numbers Favor Republicans

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured photo is by Heather Mount on Unsplash.

VIDEO: Washington State, ACLU Aren’t Letting Up in Crusade Against Florist’s Religious Liberty

/in , , , , , , , /by

How would you like to attend a political rally featuring President Donald Trump? How about one featuring former President Barack Obama?

Even better—why don’t you attend both? You get to help decorate the stage. You can even create a banner setting forth that party’s platform.

Given our polarized political climate, it’s a safe bet that most Americans would elect to participate in one rally or the other, but not both. It’s pretty easy to understand why: The whole point of those rallies is to support political positions that, for many of us, are rooted in deeply held beliefs.

This basic, logical principle seems to have eluded Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the American Civil Liberties Union. This duo sued Barronelle Stutzman, a 74-year-old floral artist from Richland, Washington, and her business, Arlene’s Flowers, because she declined to participate in and design custom floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding ceremony.

Ferguson and the ACLU say that if Stutzman creates custom arrangements for any wedding, she must create them for same-sex weddings.

But there’s more. Stutzman not only designs custom floral arrangements for weddings, but also attends and personally participates in those sacred events. She decorates the venue with her artistic creations, attends the ceremony, and participates in wedding rituals. But doing that for a same-sex marriage squarely conflicts with her faith.

This is why, even though Stutzman loved her longtime customer and friend Rob Ingersoll, she respectfully declined his invitation to help celebrate his same-sex ceremony. Instead, she referred Ingersoll to other florists in the area who, in her words, she “knew would do an excellent job for this celebration.”

The story could have, and should have, ended there for reasons completely unrelated to whether one agrees with Stutzman’s decision. It should have ended there because it is Stutzman’s decision. Because in a tolerant society, there is room for disagreement. There is room for Democratic Party rallies and Republican Party rallies. There’s even room for Green Party rallies, just don’t expect them to feature helium balloons (or, for that matter, many people).

But the story didn’t end there, because Ferguson was unwilling to allow certain beliefs to go unpunished—namely, a religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Despite the fact that he received no complaint from Ingersoll about Stutzman or her business, Ferguson sued this 74-year-old grandmother in her professional and personal capacity. The latter means that all of Stutzman’s personal assets, including her life savings, are at risk.

Stutzman went on to lose her case. After several years of legal proceedings, the Washington Supreme Court later ruled in State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers that Stutzman must pay penalties and attorneys’ fees for choosing to live consistently with her conscience.

But the story doesn’t end there, either. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Stutzman appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which vacated the state high court’s ruling and ordered it to reconsider in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop. In that case, the Supreme Court condemned the hostility that Colorado demonstrated toward the faith of cake artist Jack Phillips.

This past Tuesday, Stutzman filed her arguments with the Washington Supreme Court, asking that it reverse the government’s punishment of her, just like the high court did in Phillips’ case.

As the Washington Supreme Court considers Stutzman’s plight once again, it would do well to remember there are people of good will on both sides of the marriage debate. The government should never be hostile to sincere religious beliefs of people of faith, and it should never seek to force anyone to violate their core convictions, especially by participating in a sacred event like a wedding ceremony.

Ours is a diverse society united by a commitment to freedom of belief, not a compulsion to uniformity of thought. A win for Stutzman will reaffirm that foundational American principle.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of James Gottry

James Gottry

James Gottry is a lawyer and writer with Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group founded to preserve and defend religious liberty. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Spontaneous Worship Breaks Out at White House as Top Christian Artists Gather

Campus senator labeled ‘homophobic’ for speaking her faith

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and video is republished with permission. Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom.

Will Bitcoin Continue To Rise Or Is It A Volatile Road Ahead?

/in , , , /by

Bitcoin recently passed the historic and record-breaking $10,000 mark, and then promptly fell back again. At the start of this year, as with every year so far in Bitcoin’s short history, many crypto-enthusiasts and investors predicted big gains for Bitcoin’s price. But, very few anticipated just how large those gains would be. Multiplying its value 10-fold from $1000 to $10,000 within a year, Bitcoin has proven to be the world’s best performing financial asset in 2017. But, how can we get past the media hype and know if this trend will continue?

Bitcoin’s Rocky Rise So Far

The price of Bitcoin has historically been volatile and unpredictable for years – and even from day to day. Bubbles, sell-offs, and flash crashes can all be seen in the price history chart. Nobody has been able to consistently predict where its value will go next. This volatility is due to a number of things, including a relatively small global market capitalization, a high level of speculative investment, limited use cases for cryptocurrencies so far, and lack of interest from larger regulating bodies and financial institutions.

However, if you take a step back from the chaos, there is one trend that has endured throughout the history of Bitcoin – the price eventually goes up. The price has gone up so quickly that the large bubbles and crashes of the past seem to fade into insignificance. The most famous bitcoin crash in 2014 saw the price drop from over $1000 to $300.

Overall the upward trend has been at an exponential rate, meaning large financial gains for those that have invested in Bitcoin so far. This trend has continued in 2017.

Bitcoin’s Recent Breakout

The huge 10x surge in the price of Bitcoin over the last year isn’t completely out of the blue. Billionaire investor Tim Draper predicted in 2014 that Bitcoin would hit the $10,000 mark in three years, and he was correct. The basis for his predictions was that Bitcoin would prosper if the right infrastructure was built around it. Three years on, much of that infrastructure is coming along nicely.

New startups and companies have emerged that are finding useful ways to apply cryptocurrencies and blockchain, proving there is value in the technology. Creative solutions to technical problems such as the Bitcoin scaling debate are also popping up.

Perhaps most importantly, the major Bitcoin trading platforms have earned the trust of the public and traders, who are looking for efficient ways to buy Bitcoin, and now the larger financial institutions are getting in on the action as well. One key influence has been that Nasdaq, the world’s second-largest stock exchange, announced that they plan to launch Bitcoin futures in 2018. Recognition from major institutions like this is what Bitcoin needs to assert itself in the financial big leagues.

Where is Bitcoin Heading?

The key factors influencing Bitcoin’s price are political and economic uncertainty (Bitcoin is seen as a hedge against falling fiat currencies), actions by large institutions and regulators, the community surrounding Bitcoin, and media hype. There is no doubt that media hype and speculation are at a high right now, but people have been saying that for years. This has been a big driving factor, but there are other forces at play.

Bitcoin is surrounded by favorable circumstances at the moment. Blockchain technology has been tried and tested, governing bodies around the world are starting to take cryptocurrencies seriously, big financial institutions and hedge funds are starting to pour money in, all the while global economics and politics are getting scarier.

Put all these together, and what you get is the soaring Bitcoin price we’ve seen this year. It looks certain that cryptocurrencies, while still developing, are going to have a major role to play in the future online economy. If this is the case, the price of Bitcoin could rise even more. Of course, there will be volatility, bubbles, and crashes along the way, but the long-term, underlying trend of the Bitcoin price is clear – it’s going to rise.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on CryptoCoin.News. It is republished with permission.

Presidential Proclamation Addresses Massive Illegal ‘Migrant’ Caravan — A dire national security threat.

/in , , , , /by

The United States is about to be inundated with thousands of foreign nationals heading up through Latin America to the U.S./Mexico border. The media, nearly unanimously, have described them all as “migrants” purportedly fleeing poverty and violence in their home countries in Central America. The President, however, has stated that among them are criminals and individuals from other than Latin America.

President Trump is determined to discourage as many of these individuals from entering the United States illegally as a matter of national security.

As I have noted in previous articles about this “Caravan of Migrants,” talk show hosts and others have blatantly accused the President of being a liar who does not care about poor migrants. Of course, they are blithely ignoring that the President has access to intelligence that is not made available to anyone else.

They have also failed to make any effort to do a bit of research, to determine if perhaps there is evidence that is available in the public domain that would support Trump’s assertions.

My article “Trump Connects The Dots On Dangers Of Illegal Immigration” contains compelling evidence about the potential for Iranian involvement in large-scale human trafficking and hence the potential that they and other adversaries of the United States would be eager to inundate the United States with huge numbers of aliens that would overwhelm the already beleaguered immigration system.

That article and others that I have written recently included evidence that has been furnished by expert witnesses at Congressional hearings and in various reports prepared by experts that Iran has been steadily increasing its influence in Latin America through its client Hezbollah, to partner with Latin American drug trafficking cartels and human traffickers – often one and the same – to send huge quantities of narcotics to the United States along with illegal aliens in order to generate huge amounts of ill-gotten funds and to embed sleeper agents here.

The June 8, 2017 DOJ report “Two Men Arrested for Terrorist Activities on Behalf of Hizballah’s Islamic Jihad Organization” focused on the arrest and prosecution of two naturalized U.S. citizen “sleeper agents” who had been born in Lebanon. One of the two alleged terrorists was additionally charged with committing naturalization fraud; he purportedly used his ill-gotten U.S. citizenship to apply for a U.S. passport that facilitated his international travel in support of Hezbollah. Both had been conducting preparatory surveillance of military and law enforcement facilities and airports in Michigan and New York.

I addressed the case of two other Iranian sleeper agents in my September 2018 article, “Iranian Agents Charged With Targeting U.S. Locations: Sleeper Agents/Assassins in Our Midst?”

The President has decided to act proactively to head off what could well be a national security / public safety catastrophe in the making.

On November 8, 2018 the Justice Department issued a press release, jointly announcing with the Department of Homeland Security, that President Trump had issued a proclamation under which the administration would not process asylum applications filed by illegal aliens who had entered the United States without inspection after November 10, 2018, the date that the proclamation went into effect. It would not apply to unaccompanied alien minors nor would it prevent aliens from making an application for Withholding of Removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Withholding of Removal is similar to asylum but imposes a higher burden of proof upon that alien who files for that protection from deportation (removal) and imposes additional restrictions.

The proclamation will expire either 90 days after taking effect or when a safe-country agreement is entered into with Mexico, whichever occurs earlier. Finally, within 90 days of the proclamation taking effect, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security are required to provide the President with their recommendations as to whether or not to extend the proclamation.

President Trump’s proclamation is a direct response to the massive numbers of foreign nationals heading to the U.S./Mexican border. Consider the title of the proclamation: Presidential Proclamation Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States.

In recent years massive numbers of illegal aliens have come to exploit the asylum policies of the United States to circumvent the lawful entry process by which aliens enter the United States. They have found in America’s long history and tradition of kindness a weakness that can be easily exploited.

In point of fact, 80% of these applications have reportedly been denied. Furthermore, the administration will continue to accept and process asylum applications that aliens who attempt entry into ports of entry file. The obvious goal of the proclamation is to discourage enormous numbers of aliens who are members of the massive “caravan of migrants” from running our borders, evading the inspections/vetting process at ports of entry and then using fatuous asylum claims as “plan B” for aspiring illegal aliens if apprehended by the Border Patrol. On the other hand, when not stopped by the Border Patrol, these illegal aliens who evaded the inspections process simply head to towns and cities across the United States and hide in plain sight.

The 9/11 Commission describes that effort made by terrorists to “hide in plain sight” as the embedding process that incidentally is made far easier by “sanctuary policies” implemented by mayors and governors of Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary States, who have utter disdain for America’s borders and immigration laws and refuse to cooperate with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) even when the aliens in question are convicted felons. Incredibly, they have released aliens who were convicted of committing violent crimes rather than turn them over to ICE for deportation from the United States, all too frequently with tragic but preventable results.

Consider the most recent case highlighted in a November 9, 2018 ICE news release, “Mexican national released from local custody facing murder charges.”

According to that press release, 23 year-old illegal alien Luis Rodrigo Perez, a citizen of Mexico, was being held on domestic violence charges in the Middlesex County Jail in New Jersey when ICE issued a detainer that the jail did not honor, releasing Perez into the community without notifying ICE.

After his release from the jail in February of 2018, Perez eventually made his way to Missouri where he has now been charged in a triple murder that recently occurred in Springfield, Missouri.

Business Insider’s article “Trump’s new move to limit asylum challenged in court” noted that the intention of the proclamation was to funnel all of these aliens through ports of entry so that they can be vetted, but the resources at many of the ports are inadequate to handle the workload and aliens are often told to come back days later.

However, all aliens who do show up at ports of entry will, even under the proclamation, be able to file applications for asylum. The obvious goal of the proclamation is to enable DHS to vet every alien and create a record of the entry or attempted entry of each alien.

The only aliens who would potentially be adversely impacted by the proclamation are those who enter without inspection.

Incidentally, as I noted in another of my recent articles, “ACLU Attacks Border Wall And Kate’s Law,” the purpose for the wall on the U.S./Mexican border would not be to stop legitimate commerce or movement of people into the United States but to make certain that all such traffic is also funneled through ports of entry.

For decades, even in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11 and subsequent terror attacks, the immigration system has been chronically underfunded and understaffed so that the only way for the adjudications officers of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) to keep up with the avalanche of applications for various immigration benefits, that include granting political asylum and conferring lawful immigrant status and United States citizenship upon aliens, is to approve as many of those applications as possible.

This leads to rampant levels of fraud. As a consequence, terrorists such as the naturalized citizen Iranian sleeper agents I noted earlier, as well as the Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the deadly terror attack at the Boston Marathon and Faisal Shahzad, the “Times Square Bomber,” are a few examples of many where terrorists were granted lawful status and even, in some instances, citizenship not long before they carried out or attempted to carry out deadly terror attacks in the United States.

9/11 and Terrorist Travel is an official report that was prepared by the federal agents and federal attorney who were assigned to the 9/11 Commission. Here is a quote from that report worth considering; it specifically addressed political asylum fraud:

Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.

I wrote about this nexus between immigration fraud and terrorism in my extensive article, “Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill.”

Through his proclamation and other initiatives, President Trump is following the dictum by which all sensible people live their lives, “Safety first.” All rational Americans should be grateful for it.

RELATED ARTICLE: Filmmaker Travels with Caravan, Gets Stunning Footage Proving Media’s Lying to Us

EDITORS NOTE: This column and images originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by History in HD on Unsplash.

If Trump Ended Birthright Citizenship by Executive Order, He’d Be Enforcing Existing Law

/in , , , , , , /by

President Donald Trump’s critics have found something else to rend their garments over: his determination to end so-called “birthright citizenship.” Why, they thunder, it’s unconstitutional. And even if it could be changed, it can’t be by executive order.

They’re wrong on both counts.

That probably comes as a surprise to many Americans, including some who consider themselves Trump supporters. Haven’t we all been told for years that if you’re born here, you’re automatically a U.S. citizen? It’s all right there in the 14th Amendment. No matter who your parents are or what their status is, you’re an American. Simple as that.

Or is it? Consider the actual wording: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”

Seems pretty cut and dry, but check out that crucial clause: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It’s easy to mumble over it, but we shouldn’t. The Senate included it there for a reason when it passed the amendment in 1868: to make it clear that not everyone born here is automatically a citizen.

Being born here is only half the equation. You also must be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The original proposed wording of the amendment did not include that phrase. It was inserted specifically to make it clear that the law did not, in fact, confer citizenship on everyone born here.

Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, a member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction and a strong supporter of the Citizenship Clause, noted that Congress intended to exclude “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.” Supreme Court cases decided in the years soon after the amendment’s passage confirm this view.

Moreover, says constitutional scholar Edward Erler:

“It is hard to conclude that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to confer citizenship on the children of aliens illegally present when they explicitly denied that boon to Native Americans legally present but subject to a foreign jurisdiction.”

Notes Hillsdale College’s Matthew Spalding:

“Few developed nations practice the rule of jus soli, or ‘right of the soil.’ More common is jus sanguinis, ‘right of blood,’ by which a child’s citizenship is determined by parental citizenship, not place of birth.”

In short, it was wise of Congress to limit the scope of the amendment. And those who misinterpret it are wrong. Trump should be commended for trying to bring current understanding back in line with the original intent of the framers.

That leaves us with the question of whether he would be right to set this issue straight via an executive order. Some people who agree with him on birthright citizenship, such as National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy, believe that he shouldn’t. They argue that it should be done by the same body that issued the amendment in the first place: Congress.

In other words, this is a job for Congress, the branch of government that creates our laws, not the executive, which enforces them.

According to McCarthy, a president cannot “unilaterally change an understanding of the law that has been in effect for decades under a duly enacted federal law.”

Granted, but as constitutional scholar Hans von Spakovsky points out, “that assumes the ‘understanding’ is the correct one. If that understanding actually violates the plain text and intent of the law, the president as the chief law-enforcement officer can, and indeed has an obligation, to direct the federal government to begin applying and enforcing it correctly.”

To put it another way, the president here would not be attempting to make a new law, but to enforce the correct view of an existing law.

Sure, his order would be immediately challenged. Perhaps we’d even wind up with Congress clarifying the original intent of the law.

All the more reason to do it. Fairness demands that we get this issue settled—and soon.

Originally published in The Washington Times

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Ed Feulner

Ed Feulner

Edwin J. Feulner’s 36 years of leadership as president of The Heritage Foundation transformed the think tank from a small policy shop into America’s powerhouse of conservative ideas. Read his research. Twitter: .

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Ron Sachs/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom.

First Gun Confiscation Death

/in , , , , /by

Why 5:17 a.m. – doesn’t appear to have been an imminent threat – this is ridiculous overreaction by law enforcement in the People’s Republic of Maryland and could happen anywhere.

These Red Flag Laws are also known in Florida as Risk Protection Orders under the Marjory Stoneman Public Safety (gun control) Law. We are the only Red state out of 12 which have instigated such laws. Already in Polk County since Sep 14, there have been 121 cases of gun seizures prior to a hearing. Don’t know how many of these cases were proven or unproven (and guns returned or how long it took) but in cases threat not proved, it is certain to generate unnecessary costs to those accused persons who elect to hire attorney and unnecessary humiliation.

Totally unconstitutional and in violation of Due Process. hard to believe Republican dominated Florida Legislature approved this and Governor Scott signed it.

This has got to be challenged in courts and soon before more innocent Americans are killed or put thru this wringer ignoring their 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights against false search and seizure and due process of being innocent until proven guilty based on someone’s unproven perception they are a threat!

You could predict this would happen in a state with red flag laws.

Breaking: First Gun Confiscation Killing Reported in Maryland

This is absolutely tragic. Police officers in Anne Arundel County, Maryland arrived at a man’s home to confiscate his guns under the state’s Red Flag law. When he answered the door holding a gun, a fight ensued and they shot him dead.

For months, we have been warning you about the so-called “red flag” bills that are being passed in states around the country. These laws allow family members, friends, and even complete strangers to turn gun owners into police to have their firearms confiscated. It is then up to the gun owner to prove that he or she deserves the right to keep and bear arms. It completely turns the justice system on its head. Under these laws, gun owners are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

On Monday morning, police officers in Anne Arundel County, Maryland showed up confiscate 60-year-old Gary J Willis’ guns. A family member had called police and asked them to suspend Gary Willis’ gun rights, and the local police department was more than happy to oblige.

When the pounding on the door began at 5:17 am, Gary showed up to his door holding a firearm. When he saw it was police, he put the gun down to talk to them. But then, the officers informed him they were there to confiscate all of his weapons.

Imagine how you would feel. You wake up out of a sound sleep to pounding on your door. You grab a gun in case it is a criminal, but it turns out that the police are there to confiscate your guns without even accusing you of committing a crime…

Read more.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Bruno Martins on Unsplash.

Energy & Environmental News [+Video]

/in , , , , /by

Here is the latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter.

Maybe due to the recent US elections, there’s a very high quantity of reports and articles in this cycle. I’ve tried to simplify this by having a special section on Nuclear Energy in this issue of the Newsletter. There are quite a few excellent (and surprising) articles in that part (like this and this), so please check them out.

In my continuous effort to make it clearer to citizens how to succeed in a local wind war, I just added a new page to my website: Winning. Let me know if you have any questions, or suggestions for improvements to that significant page.

I was asked an interesting question: what are some of the better books about the Climate Change issue? I know others have tackled this before, but I thought an update was appropriate — so I put together a list of good book related to this topic. If you have corrections and/or additions, please let me know and I will update.

Speaking of Climate Change, I’m starting the highlights of this Newsletter with a short video from Dr. Jordan Peterson — a phenomena. If you don’t know who this no-hold-barred scientist is, you’re in for a treat and a breath of fresh air.

Some of the more informative Global Warming articles are:

Short Video: Jordan Peterson on Climate Change
IPCC: Where Dictators Overrule Scientists
Report: IPCC SR15 Climate Change Report is Based on Faulty Premises
Moving The Goalposts, IPCC Secretly Redefines ‘Climate’
UN’s Solution to Climate Change: End Capitalism
The UN Admits That The Paris Climate Deal Was A Fraud
3 Surprises About Nobel Laureate Nordhaus’s Model of Climate Change
Levin TV: Dr. Pat Michaels on Global Warming, wind energy, etc.
National Association of Scholars: Making Science Reproducible
The Intrinsic Value of Nature and the Proper Stewardship of the Climate
500 Million Years of Unrelatedness between Atmospheric CO2 and Temps
Video: Is the Global Temperature Record Credible?

Some of the more interesting Energy related articles are:

Federal renewable energy subsidies reduce reliability, hinder the market
BBC Mislead Again — This Time About the Cost of Wind Power
Report: Natural Gas Economics Outshines Solar, Blows Past Wind
The Production Tax Credit: Corporate Subsidies & Renewable Energy
Green Energy Mandates Could Double Your Electric Bills
Former Wind Energy CEO Charged In Million Dollar Fraud Scheme
MA Town Board of Health Says Turbines Negatively Affecting Public Health
New Medical Research: Infrasound Negatively Impacts Heart Health!

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone. Some documents (e.g. PDFs) are easier to read on a computer. We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize issues.

Note 2: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

Note 3: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, WiseEnergy.org. The most important page there is the Winning page.

Note 4: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

Trump Administration Returns to Supreme Court, Seeking End To DACA

/in , , , , , , , , /by
  • The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review its decision to rescind the Obama-era DACA program Tuesday night.
  • The request is unusual, because legal challenges to DACA’s termination are still underway in the lower courts.
  • The Justice Department said the Court must act now to resolve the dispute this term, but left-leaning civil rights groups called the petition a political student ahead of Tuesday’s election. 

The Trump administration returned to the U.S. Supreme Court Monday night seeking to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extends protected status to illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as children.

The move is aggressive and unusual, as decisions on Trump’s efforts to rescind DACA are still pending in several federal appeals courts, and the justices seldom take up cases before those judgments issue. But the U.S. Department of Justice told the Supreme Court Monday that action is needed in the near term.

The Trump administration previously sought the Supreme Court’s review of its efforts to phase out DACA. After two federal judges issued injunctions requiring the government to continue administering the program, the Justice Department bypassed normal appellate procedure and went directly to the Supreme Court on Jan. 18 to vindicate its right to terminate the program.

The justices rejected that request on Feb. 26, but asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to quickly process the case so it could return to the high court in a reasonable timeframe. Other challenges to DACA repeal efforts are currently before appeals courts in New York and Washington, D.C.

“It is assumed that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case,” the Supreme Court’s February order read. No decision has since come from the circuit courts.

In a letter attending the government’s petition, Solicitor General Noel Francisco explained that the high court should take the cases now — even though the appeals courts have yet to render decisions on the matter — to ensure the justices can resolve the dispute during the current term.

“As this Court’s previous order recognized, prompt consideration of these cases is essential,” the letter reads. “By virtue of the district courts’ orders, DHS is being required to maintain a discretionary policy of non-enforcement sanctioning an ongoing violation of federal law by more than half a million individuals.”

“Yet, absent prompt intervention from this Court, there is little chance this dispute will be resolved for at least another year,” the letter adds.

Paulina Ruiz chants with supporters of the DACA program on Olivera Street in Los Angeles, California. REUTERS/Kyle Grillot

Paulina Ruiz chants with supporters of the DACA program on Olivera Street in Los Angeles, California. REUTERS/Kyle Grillot

On the merits of the dispute, the Trump administration contends that its decision to terminate DACA cannot be reviewed in court, since the program exists entirely at the executive branch’s discretion. Even if its termination decision is reviewable, they continue, it is still reasonable and lawful.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights denounced the move as an “election eve stunt.”

“The day before an election that will have huge implications for this administration, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his Department have shamelessly asked the Supreme Court to bypass the appellate courts in their quest to end DACA,” said Vanita Gupta, president of the Leadership Conference. “This administration is in a rush to pull the rug out from under Dreamers and subject them to deportation. This extraordinary move is blatantly cruel to immigrant youth who call this country their home and contribute to their communities.”

“The Supreme Court must reject this politically motivated and unnecessary request,” she added.

But Sessions said that the 9th Circuit left the administration with little choice.

“The Department of Justice should not have been forced to make this filing today — the 9th Circuit should have acted expeditiously, just as the Supreme Court expected them to do,” the AG said Monday night. “But we will not hesitate to defend the constitutional system of checks and balances vigorously and resolutely.”

DACA extends temporary legal status to approximately 700,000 migrants, and allows them to obtain work permits.

COLUMN BY

Kevin Daley

Kevin J. Daley is the Daily Caller News Foundation’s Supreme Court reporter. Follow Kevin on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLE: Supreme Court Weighs Bid To Open Nation’s Largest Uranium Mine

Send tips to kevin@dailycallernewsfoundation.org

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Keeping Our Eye on the Prize

/in , , , , , /by

Keep your eye on the prize and run to win! That was Paul’s charge to the Corinthians in pursuing the call of God upon their lives. Knowing their love of sports, he told them they should run with the same determination, discipline, and focus that they would use to win the prize in the Isthmian games held in Corinth. Paul’s appeal to these qualities in the pursuit of what should be our ultimate goal, living life by God’s design, only serves to underscore the importance of these characteristics to success in any undertaking that is worth pursuing.

In America today, determination, discipline, and focus are also what is required to continue on our current path of restoring the core values that built a great and prosperous country. In particular, we have seen the end to eight years of a withering assault on religious freedom, an issue that motivated voters in the 2016 election.

A clarion call to respect people of faith and our First Freedom — religious liberty — could not come at a better time as we mourn as a nation the loss of life in Pittsburgh where a man allegedly motivated by hatred against Jewish people committed an act of violence.

That barbarism illustrates why respect for people of faith and protection of religious liberty is so important, especially after years of marginalization by the last administration.

The anti-faith attacks could be seen most clearly in our own government prosecuting nuns, who were aiding the least of these, for refusing to violate their religious beliefs and fund contraceptives, including abortifacients, in their health care plans.

There were also the cases of Soldiers, Airmen, Coastguardsmen and Marines punished for seeking to live out their religious faith in the most basic ways, like having a Bible on their desk or chaplains like Wes Modder being removed from his command for counseling according to the principles of his biblical faith.

We witnessed small business owners like Don Vander Boon, whose family owns a meat packing facility in Michigan, told by agents of the federal government that he had to remove Bible-based articles from his breakroom where employees gathered, or the government would shut their business down.

But stopping this prejudice is only the first step to righting our course. It will take a concerted and consistent effort to rebuild respect for America’s First Freedom throughout the ranks of a government, which the previous administration had mobilized to attack.

Less than two years in office, the Trump administration is restoring religious liberty. In May of 2017, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Justice to ensure all federal agencies were protecting and promoting religious freedom. Despite tremendous opposition from leftist groups that are suing the DOJ and other agencies to hinder or stop the effort, the restoration of our First Freedom continues.

For the first time in a long time, religious freedom has also become a priority in U.S. foreign policy, most notably demonstrated in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Just three months into his post, he hosted the first-ever Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, attended by leaders from over 80 different nations.

It is essential to each individual American, especially to Christians who are called to follow the teaching of Scripture no matter what they do: “whether eating or drinking, do all to the glory of God.” This understanding that religious freedom is the ability to live every aspect of our lives according to our faith is deeply rooted in what historians describe as America’s Protestant work ethic, which has led to unparalleled productivity and prosperity, as work is an act of worship done in service to God.

French historian Alexis De Tocqueville, in his historical analysis of America’s growing prosperity in the 1800’s, made clear that the foundation and anchor for democracy and prosperity in America was the Christian faith pioneered by the Puritans. In other words, America didn’t create religious freedom; religious freedom created America.

Many will be quick to try and dismiss the connection between religious freedom, economic prosperity and social stability, but a growing body of academic research shows the correlation. Indeed, a study by the Religious Freedom and Business Foundation reports that “religion contributes $1.2 trillion to the U.S. economy annually, more than the combined revenues of the top 10 technology U.S. companies including Apple, Amazon and Google.”

Is it a coincidence that as religious freedom is being promoted and protected again in America, our economy is growing and unemployment is shrinking to historic lows? Maybe, but economic growth and prosperity cannot be long sustained without religious freedom. And for religious freedom to impact the economy, it has to be an individual freedom that permeates all aspects of society. The mere freedom of worship, which seeks to quarantine the practice of one’s faith within the walls of a church, is not authentic religious freedom.

The Trump administration has done more to restore religious freedom than any other administration since the steady assault began over a half century ago. This election is about whether or not we continue on a path that restores America’s First Freedom, which is foundational to genuinely making America great again. We must be disciplined in systematically pursuing those policies that will restore religious freedom and stay focused on the prize — one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.

For more motivation heading into Tuesday, check out this op-ed by FRC’s Patrina Mosley and David Closson, “For Christians, Voting Is Not an Option. It’s a Divine Calling.”

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

An Eventful Sunday! Live from Colorado…

One Kavanaugh Accuser’s Claim to Frame

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

Capitalism Brings Us Together, Authoritarianism Tears Us Apart

/in , , , , , /by

Empathy is fostered in a culture where commercial transactions occur between all walks of life.

You’ve probably heard this story before: a terrible crime occurs, the press interviews the neighbors of the perpetrator, and the neighbors say they never saw it coming.

Consider Robert Bowers, the mass murderer who killed eleven people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. One neighbor said this:

It’s just so disturbing that someone so normal could have so much hate. You think you know your neighbor, but this just shows how wrong you can be.

Some may dismiss such comments as coming from clueless, unobservant individuals. Surely there are signs that individuals, such as Bowers, are capable of committing heinous acts. We are comfortable believing in good guys and bad guys, separated by a relatively impermeable barrier between the polarities. Think of villains in popular movies and television—they are often one-dimensional characters who easily commit terrible acts, often without a rationale.

Renowned psychology professor Roy Baumeister is best known for his work on willpower. His work on the nature of evil deserves close examination, too. He begins his book, Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty, with a bold proposition: “Evil usually enters the world unrecognized by the people who open the door and let it in. Most people who perpetrate evil do not see what they are doing as evil.”

Baumeister defines evil as “actions that intentionally harm other people.” When we have a black and white view of evil, it is easy to believe that those like Bowers must be insane. Not true, Baumeister informs us: “insanity is in fact a relatively rare and minor cause of violence.”

Calling someone “insane” is an attempt to absolve them of responsibility. As Baumeister observes, “People do become extremely upset and abandon self-control, with violent results, but this is not insanity.” He adds, “violence is often an impulsive action representing a failure of self-control—but a failure in which the person often acquiesces.”

Would you, Baumeister asks, “obey orders to kill innocent civilians? Would you help torture someone? Would you stand by passively while the secret police hauled your neighbors off to concentration camps?” Baumeister writes, “Most people say no. But when such events actually happen, the reality is quite different.”

In his acclaimed work The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn observed:

If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

Solzhenitsyn continued by observing that the line between good and evil is permeable:

During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn’t change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil.

In his book The Better Angels of Our Nature, Professor Steven Pinker echoes Solzhenitsyn and Baumeister: “Humans are not innately good (just as they are not innately evil), but they come equipped with motives that can orient them away from violence and toward cooperation and altruism.”

Pinker reveals the factors that help us choose good over evil:

Empathy (particularly in the sense of sympathetic concern) prompts us to feel the pain of others and to align their interests with our own. Self-control allows us to anticipate the consequences of acting on our impulses and to inhibit them accordingly. The moral sense sanctifies a set of norms and taboos that govern the interactions among people in a culture, sometimes in ways that decrease violence, though often (when the norms are tribal, authoritarian, or puritanical) in ways that increase it. And the faculty of reason allows us to extricate ourselves from our parochial vantage points, to reflect on the ways in which we live our lives, to deduce ways in which we could be better off, and to guide the application of the other better angels of our nature.

Baumeister, Pinker, and Solzhenitsyn are correct: The conditions under which people are prone to tip to their evil side deserve a great deal of study and reflection.

Many of us hold popular beliefs “that frustration, violent movies, poverty, hot weather, alcohol, and unfair treatment all cause aggression.” Baumeister rejects these theories and asks:

Why isn’t there more evil than there is? … Then why wouldn’t almost every adult in America have committed several murders and dozens of assaults by now? After all, how many adult Americans have not been frustrated? Have not seen violent films? Have not felt poor or suffered from hot weather or so forth?

For Baumeister, the answer is clear:

Most violent impulses are held back by forces inside the person. In a word, self-control prevents a great deal of potential violence. Therefore, regardless of the root causes of violence, the immediate cause is often a breakdown of self-control.

Evil and violence increase when we choose to not restrain ourselves. Baumeister explains:

When evil increases, it does not necessarily mean that the causes of evil have become more powerful or important. Rather, it may mean that the inner controls have become weakened. Or, to put it another way: You do not have to give people reasons to be violent, because they already have plenty of reasons. All you have to do is take away their reasons to restrain themselves. Even a small weakening of self-control might be enough to produce a rise in violence. Evil is always ready and waiting to burst into the world.

Many people believe low self-esteem leads to violent acts. “The evidence shows plainly that this idea is false,” Baumeister explains:

Violent acts follow from high self-esteem, not from low self-esteem. This is true across a broad spectrum of violence, from playground bullying to national tyranny, from domestic abuse to genocide, from warfare to murder and rape. Perpetrators of violence are typically people who think very highly of themselves.

He observes that “people whose self-esteem is high but lack a firm basis in genuine accomplishment are especially prone to be violent, because they are most likely to have their narcissistic bubble burst.”

Many educators praise students regardless of their accomplishments, fueling narcissism. One can wonder where this will lead. As these young narcissists meet the world will they “feel like lashing out at anyone who says [they] are not as great as [they] thought.”

Both Baumeister and Pinker point to empathy as a factor that brings out our “better angels.” As Baumeister points out, though, human beings tend to feel the most empathy for those who are “most similar to themselves.” In other words, many default to tribalism.

Before his deadly act in Pittsburgh, Bowers blamed Jews for helping to promote immigration. He posted on the social media platform, Gab, “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered.” “All Jews [must] die” played like a mantra in his mind. If Bowers taps into his capacity for empathy, he extends empathy to a narrowly defined tribe.

Authoritarian societies—whether called socialist, communist, or fascist—are always looking to find scapegoats. In those societies, there is always the “evil other,” a group or groups who have “sabotaged” the greatness of the authoritarian regime. When monstrous evil deeds are committed, some perpetrators assuage their guilt by believing their acts defend their “noble” vision. Others believe they are merely following orders and doing their job.

Reading accounts of Nazi, Soviet, or North Korean concentration camps, remarkable similarities are revealed. Unspeakable brutality is practiced and rationalized. The rationalization always begins with some form of the belief that their victims are not truly human. As Baumeister puts it, “The lack of empathy makes violence toward outsiders easier because it undermines the restraining power of guilt.”

Baumeister relates the story of a man concerned about the lack of food and adequate clothing at a Soviet labor camp in his village. At significant risk to himself, he protested to the camp administrator, “These people might die!” “The camp administrator replied, ‘What people? These are enemies of the people.’”

Since I don’t spend hours at a time driving, I recently called SiriusXM to cancel their service; I could not justify the cost. Before making the call, I knew many complain about how hard it is to cancel their subscription. I was also aware that I’d be speaking with an agent at a call center in India. Yet, as the agent took my call, I was feeling empathy. I imagined the agent was being measured on some retention metric and that he frequently interacted with customers who just wanted to get off the phone without hearing his retention pitch.

The person I spoke with was solicitous and concerned. Why wouldn’t he be? His well-being (succeeding at his job) depends on satisfying customers. The need to satisfy customers brings out an empathetic response towards seeing the world from the point of view of the customer. Perhaps he was looking at a computer screen showing him my limited usage stats. Ten minutes and a pleasant chat later, the price of my service was reduced to a win-win, 65 percent off my previous price.

If either of us had no empathy for the other, a lose-lose outcome might have resulted. Empathy greases the wheels of commercial transactions. SiriusXM is rewarded when they hire empathic service agents who can discern consumers’ needs.

Perhaps some readers are cynical of my account. Oh, come on; he probably hates his job and was merely following a script. I doubt it, but even so, the demands of commerce were forcing the agent to join hands with me in creating a win-win trade. In the process, his practice of empathy was being rewarded.

In a Forbes essay, “A Virtuous Cycle,” James Surowiecki observed how capitalism “encouraged universalism over provincialism,…a willingness to make and keep promises—often to strangers and foreigners… [as well as] a sense of individual, rather than group, responsibility.” He explains why under capitalism, trust is not built merely on tribal personal relationships:

Trust had been the product only of a personal relationship—I trust this guy because I know him—rather than a more general assumption upon which you could do business. The real triumph of capitalism in the 19th and 20th centuries was that trust was woven into the basic fabric of everyday business. Buying and selling were no longer about a personal connection. It was now about the virtue of mutual exchange.

Einstein urged that we widen our circle of compassion. In a letter to a father grieving the untimely death of his son, Einstein wrote:

A human being is part of a whole, called by us the “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.

Einstein’s call to action is precisely what commerce does: Our circle of compassion widens through empathetic connections forged through trade. If Bowers had been a patient of the Jewish dentist he murdered, might his opinion of Jews been different?

Had he spent time walking the streets of the Squirrel Hill neighborhood where the synagogue was located, might he have stepped into some Jewish businesses? Had he stopped to shop, perhaps he would have realized that Jews were part of the extended order of which we are all a part. Perhaps his hatred would have been mitigated.To be sure, capitalism will not eliminate hatred; the line between good and evil cuts through “the heart of every human being.” Yet capitalism is pointing us in the right direction. As the extended order gets wider, it creates more opportunities for more people to widen their circle of compassion. As commerce weaves together the lives of people everywhere, the question Solzhenitsyn asked—“who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”—becomes easier to answer.

COLUMN BY

Barry Brownstein

Barry Brownstein

Barry Brownstein is professor emeritus of economics and leadership at the University of Baltimore. He is the author of The Inner-Work of Leadership. To receive Barry’s essays subscribe at Mindset Shifts.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.