President Donald Trump hopes to unite Republicans behind new immigration goals that focus on border security and a merit-based system that keeps legal immigration at current levels.
The president is set to deliver a Rose Garden address on the plan at 2:30 p.m. Thursday.
Trump wants more people coming to the country to fill new jobs in the expanding economy, and is concerned that Democrat lawmakers routinely stick together, especially in the Senate.
Senior administration officials contend Trump’s plan will make legal immigration more fair and is in the national interest. They contend that it will bring in, and keep, the best and the brightest legal immigrants.
The number brought in because of family already here—so-called chain migration—is expected to decline under the plan.
Senior administration officials noted Wednesday that Democrats already have come to the table with their non-negotiables, while Republicans still have several points of disagreement.
The president aims to find points that almost all Republican lawmakers can agree on.
The officials estimated that the merit-based changes would shift the immigration population from 13% employment-based to almost 60% employment-based.
Three categories would focus on “extraordinary talent” visas and vocation visas, and on keeping “extraordinary students” from abroad after they graduate from U.S. colleges.
The visas would be issued on a point-based system, more in line with Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and other countries, officials said.
While moving immigration policy toward a meritocracy, the plan still would prioritize spouses and children to achieve family reunification. But, senior administration officials said, the plan would not give an immigrant an unfair advantage to enter the United States simply because he or she has a relative already here.
Because the immigration-neutral, merit-based plan is aimed at uniting the president’s party, it doesn’t include language about the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or about a guest worker program.
Republicans have been divided on both issues.
The White House hopes to push Democrat opponents of the plan either to negotiate or argue for the status quo.
The border security portion of the plan includes a border wall and closing loopholes to end the policy known as catch and release.
Trump is frustrated with the current system, which releases hundreds of thousands of illegal border crossers pending a hearing because of a shortage of federal immigration judges.
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
The short answer is simple, No. Let us not forget that in the beginning of our Republic, only land owners could vote in elections. The premise here was that only RESPONSIBLE people should vote as they would do what was best for the country overall. This was expanded over the years to all citizens, including former slaves, women, and younger people (when the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1972). Nonetheless, it was assumed these people would vote RESPONSIBLY, but this hasn’t proven to be the case as we have a relatively poor turnout during elections, and many of those who vote are misinformed about history, current events, and how our government works.
Then along comes radical socialists like presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders who, in a recent CNN Town Hall meeting, insists convicted prisoners and terrorists, like the Boston Marathon bomber, should have the right to vote from prison. He said, “Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, ‘Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote. Well, that person did that. Not going to let that person vote,’ you’re running down a slippery slope.”
The fact people are incarcerated means they are a danger to society and, as such, forfeits their rights, such as freedom, owning a gun, and, Yes, voting. Consider this, will the imprisoned terrorist or prisoner vote as RESPONSIBLY as the hard working person who pays taxes, obeys the law, and supports his/her family, not to mention their community? Come on, honestly, who would vote with the best interests of the community and country in mind? It’s a no-brainer.
Let’s be clear about something, if a person has served his/her time and is released free and clear (no probation or supervision), then I personally see no problem returning to society and allowed to vote.
Are the Democrats so desperate for votes, they would give convicts and terrorists the same voting privileges as everyone else? Unfortunately, Yes. In fact, their ultimate voting scenario would be to allow illegal immigrants to vote, prisoners to vote, and 16 year olds to vote. What’s next, voters who have died but somehow manage to mysteriously cast votes? Oh, yea, that’s already been done. Sorry. All of this is designed to rig elections, not to do what is fair and RESPONSIBLE for the country.
From my perspective, we already have too many IRRESPONSIBLE voters, people who couldn’t pass a simple civics test if their life depended on it. I am still convinced people should pass such a test to be allowed to vote. (It wouldn’t hurt if they were land owners as well.)
So, should incarcerated terrorists and convicted prisoners be allowed to vote? Of course not. We all know it is a silly question. Only someone wanting to undermine our country would insist on it.
Keep the Faith!
EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
When will Jews wake up to the fact that the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives is covering up antisemitism among its Democratic members. Recently the Democratic House of Representatives has downplayed Rashida Talib’s most recent antisemitic remarks claiming they were mischaracterized by Republicans. Then how they explain the fact that almost every Jewish organization is upset with Talib’s antisemitic remarks even though they know most Jews vote for Democrats? The Democratic leaders also know these Anti-Semites use their antisemitism to raise funds following their outrageous remarks.
The Democrats are covering up antisemitism within their ranks rather than addressing it.They are enablers. Covering up antisemitism encourages more of it and makes it socially acceptable. The difference between outspoken Anti-Semites and enabler’s is that enablers practice their antisemitism in secret.
Palestinian-American Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., is standing by her latest hate-filled statement, which is based on a monstrous falsehood. She said that she has a “kind of calming feeling” when she thinks about the Holocaust because her Palestinian “ancestors” tried “to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time.” In the same interview by hosts Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman, Rep. Tlaib complained, according to her one-sided Palestinian victimhood narrative, “that it was my ancestors, Palestinians, who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways…”
Rep. Tlaib’s Palestinian “ancestors” were in fact amongst the enthusiastic boosters of the Nazi genocide machine during World War II. Palestinian leaders sought to carry on the plan to exterminate as many of the Jews as possible who had managed to escape the Holocaust and reach the Holy Land following the war. Instead of accepting the original two-state solution proposed by the United Nations more than seven decades ago under which the Palestinians could have been living in their own independent state all this time, their leadership rejected the idea of a Jewish state existing side by side in peace with a Palestinian state.
President Trump correctly admonished Rep. Tlaib, tweeting “Democrat Rep. Tlaib is being slammed for her horrible and highly insensitive statement on the Holocaust. She obviously has tremendous hatred of Israel and the Jewish people.” Bernie Sanders rushed to her defense. Senator Sanders tweeted that President Trump should apologize for “taking Rep. @RashidaTlaib’s comments out of context.” This is the same man who said the Boston Marathon terrorist bomber should have the “right” to vote from jail.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Hellerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Heller2019-05-15 08:29:052020-01-27 17:06:23Democrats are allowing Rashida Talib’s Anti-Semitism to become Public Policy
It is all over the news so I’m sure you’ve seen it, but what struck me was a CNN cable news report this morning (you know I watch them for a little bit every day) and a female reporter asked Yusuf Abdi Ali, “Do you deserve to live here?”
Wow! CNN actually asked that question a couple of times (of course he didn’t answer). What is going on with CNN? The lengthy report actually tells us how he came to be living in the US and it involves fraud in the US refugee program.
As I said on several previous occasions, if you want to find a topic to satisfy a yen to write a blog, write a blog and call it New American Somali Watch?’
Accused of War Crimes and Torture, Uber and Lyft Hired Him
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Where does an alleged war criminal accused of torture and directing mass executions look for work while living in the United States? For Yusuf Abdi Ali, there was an easy answer: Uber and Lyft.
Within a couple of days of applying to be a ride-share driver, Ali said he was approved to shuttle passengers from place to place. He’s been doing it for more than 18 months, according to his Uber profile.
“I do this full time,” said Ali, who drives in suburban Virginia. He explained that he prefers to drive during weekends because “that’s where the money is.”When CNNreporters recently caught a ride from Ali, the former Somali military commander was listed on Uber’s app as an “Uber Pro Diamond” driver with a 4.89 rating.
Ali said he has driven for Lyft, too, but he prefers working for Uber. His white Nissan Altima had only an Uber sticker on it. Asked if the application process was difficult, Ali replied that it was a breeze.
“They just want your background check, that’s it,” said Ali, who was unaware that undercover CNN reporters were riding with him and recording the trip on video. “If you apply tonight maybe after two days it will come, you know, everything.”
Ali’s work as a ride-share driver raises new questions about the thoroughness of Uber and Lyft’s background check process and the ease with which some people with controversial pasts can get approved to drive.
[….]
Ali has not been convicted of a crime, but a basic internet search of his name turns up numerous documents and news accounts alleging he committed various atrocities while serving as a military commander during Somalia’s civil war in the 1980s.
His past was detailed in a documentary by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that featured eyewitnesses in northern Somalia who described killings allegedly committed under the direction of Ali, also known as “Colonel Tukeh.”
[….]
Uber and Lyft’s background checks are mostly performed by a separate company called Checkr, which uses applicants’ names and Social Security numbers to search for information in a national sex offender database, federal and local court records and databases used to flag suspected terrorists and others, representatives from the companies said.
A Checkr spokesperson told CNN that its background checks “rely on public criminal records that have been adjudicated in a court of law rather than unverified sources like Google search results. Similarly, most employers don’t request background checks that include pending civil litigation due to its subjective nature.”
This week, Ali is defending himself against a civil suit filed in federal court in Virginia by a man who claims he was one of Ali’s victims in 1988. Farhan Mohamoud Tani Warfaa alleged in court documents that Ali tortured and shot him and ordered bodyguards to bury his body. The guards recognized that Warfaa, a farmer, had not died and accepted a bribe from his family to release him, according to documents.
Now here is what I was most interested in—how did he come to be living among us as a ‘new American?’
According to public accounts, Ali moved to Canada after the Somali military regime he worked under collapsed in 1991. He was deported after news about his alleged war crimes in Somalia became public through that CBC documentary.
Ali entered the United States on a visa through his Somali wife who became a US citizen. In 2006, his wife was found guilty of naturalization fraud for claiming she was a refugee from the very Somali clan that Ali is accused of torturing.
John Durham, known for prosecuting FBI agents connected to infamous mobster James “Whitey” Bulger, is now a fourth attorney general’s pick to lead a special investigation into suspected government misconduct.
The Justice Department confirmed to media outlets that Attorney General William Barr named Durham, now U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, to look into why and how department and FBI officials began investigating associates of President Donald Trump before the 2016 election.
Durham’s resume includes investigating the mafia and crooked politicians.
Attorneys general from the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama administrations all previously appointed Durham to lead special investigations.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
Barr reportedly selected him to head the probe weeks ago, as the FBI came under intensified scrutiny for spying on one Trump campaign adviser and sending a confidential informant to talk to another.
In the aftermath of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report clearing the Trump campaign of conspiracy with Russia to influence the election, many Republican lawmakers called for an investigation into how the probe of Trump and his team commenced.
Two known incidents loom large: The FBI obtained a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to put Trump campaign aide Carter Page under surveillance. The FBI also sent a confidential informant to talk to George Papadopoulos, another Trump campaign aide, in a bar. The woman told Papadopoulos that her name was Azra Turk, and he later described her as “flirtatious.”
Here are six things to know about the prosecutor picked by Barr.
1. Career Prosecutor
Durham, 68, began his career as a Connecticut state prosecutor working from 1978 to 1982 in the New Haven State’s Attorney’s Office.
A registered Republican, he next served in nonpolitical positions through 35 years in the U.S. District of Connecticut, based in New Haven.
From 1982 to 1989, Durham supervised the New Haven field office of the Boston Strike Force in the Justice Department’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. For the next five years, he was chief of the criminal division for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Haven.
From 1994 through 2008, he served as deputy U.S. attorney, and then, through 2017, as counsel to the U.S. attorney.
Trump’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, appointed Durham as acting U.S. attorney for Connecticut in October 2017, and Trump nominated him for the post the next month. He took office in February 2018.
2. Busting Mafia-FBI Connection
In 1999, then-Attorney General Janet Reno appointed Durham to investigate corruption in federal law enforcement in Boston.
He examined whether two Boston mob figures, Bulger and Stephen “The Rifleman” Flemmi, had corrupted the FBI agents whom they served as informants.
Durham’s investigation led to a 10-year prison sentence for retired FBI agent John Connolly Jr., found guilty of helping the two gangsters avoid prosecution.
As part of this investigation, Durham produced documents showing four men had been framed by FBI agents and convicted of murder in the 1960s. Two died in prison, but two others won a $100 million civil judgment against the Justice Department.
3. Special Probes of CIA and Terror Detainees
In 2008, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed Durham as a special prosecutor to conduct what turned into a three-year probe of the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes. He didn’t recommend any prosecutions.
In an overlapping probe, then-Attorney General Eric Holder named him as a special prosecutor to investigate alleged mistreatment of terror suspects by CIA interrogators and government contractors.
The second probe came after the Justice Department released a report noting possible past abuse by CIA interrogators. Durham concluded by closing most of the cases, but called for continued inquiries into the deaths of two prisoners.
4. Devoted Catholic, Red Sox Fan
Despite handling high-profile cases, Durham typically keeps a low profile.
Earlier this year, according to The Day newspaper in New London, Connecticut Deputy Chief State’s Attorney Leonard C. Boyle noted the only reason that Durham would make a public speech to a crowd at the University of St. Joseph, a Roman Catholic school in West Hartford, Connecticut.
“Other than an overwhelming commitment to the cause of justice, the two great devotions of John’s life are his Catholic faith and his family,” Boyle said of Durham.
Durham and his wife Susan have four sons and eight grandchildren. He reportedly is a big Boston Red Sox fan.
The New Republic, a liberal magazine, wrote of Durham in 2011 that he “earned a nonpartisan, camera-shy, ‘white knight’ reputation.”
5. Public Corruption
Durham led some of the biggest public corruption cases in Connecticut.
Among them was the case of Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland, a Republican who resigned in 2004 after federal prosecutors found he illegally took gifts from state contractors. Rowland pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison for offenses committed as governor.
Durham also led an investigation of Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim, a Democrat, who was convicted on racketeering and bribery charges in 2003. Ganim spent six years in prison.
6. Lauded by Democrats
Democrats recently excoriated Barr for even using the word “spy” to talk about actions by the Obama administration’s FBI and Justice Department against the Trump campaign before the presidential election in November 2016.
However, Democrats could have a difficult time in attacking Durham.
Confirmed as U.S. attorney in February 2018 by a voice vote in the Senate, he had gained praise from Democrats when Trump nominated him.
Among these admirers were two of Trump’s biggest critics, Connecticut’s two Democratic senators—Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy. The two men had recommended Durham to serve as U.S. attorney.
“John Durham has earned immense respect as a no-nonsense, fierce and fair prosecutor, and we are pleased that the White House has agreed with our recommendation that he serve as United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut,” a joint statement by Blumenthal and Murphy said. “As an Assistant United States Attorney, John Durham has proven himself time and time again in some of the most challenging and sensitive cases.”
It looks like Barr has found just such another case for Durham.
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-05-15 06:53:382019-05-15 06:53:386 Things to Know About the Prosecutor Investigating Spying on Trump Campaign
So as many of you know, Church Militant was in Philadelphia last Friday to cover the pro-life response to the bullying of young girls and old women by Pennsylvania state lawmaker Brian Sims.
The event was a smashing success. Over a thousand enthusiastic, prayerful and determined pro-lifers showed up to say we aren’t going to take it anymore. Before the event, we were wondering if this was going to be a watershed-type moment for the pro-life movement.
But not just the pro-life movement, the whole socially, politically and theologically conservative world in the U.S. culture.
Ever since the rise of Barack Obama, these people have been on their heels, being accused of being bigots and haters and racists — of being white supremacists and toxic males and Nazis and heirs of white privilege and every other imaginable distortion of reality you could come up with.
Obama himself coalesced all this, drew together all these various camps into a political force meant to completely overhaul and re-fashion America.
All you have to do is just recall some telling lines — dog whistles, as the Left likes to say — to his group of racist, bigoted, anti-Christian followers who are legion.
Remember, “We are the change we have been waiting for.”
Again, “America is no longer a Christian nation.”
And of course, “They cling to guns or religion.”
Why the Left hates white males so much is because of what this particular demographic represents, and that is simply an America where Christian morality is the norm — no murdering of children in the name of women’s rights, no sanctioning of sodomy in the name of LGBT rights, no absence of borders in the name of illegal immigrants’ rights.
Those so-called rights do not exist either in natural law or moral law.
But they have been created out of thin air in legislative law which has been accomplished through lies and media propaganda and intimidation — yes, intimidation. It’s this point that makes the Friday Philly rally so incredibly important.
It was put together very last minute simply through social media messaging from Lila Rose of Live Action; Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood director; and Matt Walsh, a leading Catholic voice in the world of social media.
For a thousand people to simply show up at the drop of a hat, and Church Militant to scramble resources on very little notice, says a lot about how all this was viewed in anticipation.
Quick aside: Shout out and thank you to the private donors who made Church Militant’s trip on very short notice possible — high airfares, costly lodging and all that; thank you.
There was an air at the rally of this is it. This is an example of the type of bullying and being relegated to the back of the bus that we will not stand for anymore.
Planned Parenthood, the abortion industry giant, kills more children in America every year than any other child murdering outfit. And they have muscled their way into that position with lies — big, giant lies.
And they keep that position through lies and intimidation. For example, when we were shooting prior to the rally, getting footage of the setup, this Planned Parenthood death-scort tried to intimidate me.
I was inches away from their front gate and fence shooting and she told me I had to back away. I said, “Why? For what?” Then, of course, came the lie and intimidation.
She said, “You aren’t allowed to be here.” Straight up, I told her to shut up. I was on public property — the sidewalk — and could do whatever I pleased.
Then another pro-life woman piped up after hearing me and said yeah, “Exactly, they care about a gate more than a child.”
Anyone who has ever stood in front of these abortuaries knows the harassment, intimidation, lies and so forth that these killers inflict on pro-lifers.
They intimidate and lie on the outside to protect and deflect from butchery that goes on in the inside and in politicians like Obama and his crowd — which is the Democratic Party — they have found their champion.
Immoral, savage, killers who worship consequence-free sex, who will do anything to destroy Christian morality in America, including demonize an entire population. This is the real reason they have become completely deranged by the appearance of Donald Trump on the political stage.
Donald Trump’s version of America is one which rejects their new America, which isn’t really America at all.
He flat-out calls them out on their lies and domination of the media, of the culture and the political machinery through which they have perverted the nation.
And they hate his guts for it. But he tells them to go essentially “drop dead.” That America will be great again, meaning their view of America, as the killing fields of the abortion industry must be rejected.
That population which supports Trump’s vision of America has been intimidated and cowered by the elites for too long. And something was sparked in that community watching the off-the-hook-homosexual Brian Sims verbally beat up pro-life teenage girls and an elderly woman.
Many pro-lifers have personalities that are passive and appear to be meek and gentle and so forth. That reality has been exploited by the Left for too long. They have viewed us as doormats who will accept their bullying as part of “turning the other cheek” or whatever they imagine.
Friday said no way, not anymore. We are drawing a line in the sand. We are at war, and it is a battle to the death.
Friday in Philly launched a new phase of the movement — not just to take back the lives of children being dismembered, but to take back a nation being ripped apart by the evil of the Left.
Pray and fight; faith and good works.
EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Church Militanthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngChurch Militant2019-05-14 11:34:022019-05-14 11:35:37VIDEO: The Vortex — Bullying From the Left
Francisco Molina, a social worker for more than 12 years in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, grew dissatisfied with his government employee union and tried to resign from it last summer rather than continue to pay dues. State law wouldn’t let him leave the union, and taking a stand cost him his job.
Although he used to be a shop steward for Service Employees International Union Local 668 and lobbied on the union’s behalf in both Harrisburg and Washington, Molina says, he had decided to break with the SEIU in response to actions he viewed as hostile to free speech rights.
Molina, who was a social services aide in the Lehigh County Office of Children and Youth Services, says he also discovered that fellow union leaders did not provide rank-and-file members with accurate information.
“When I joined the union, I didn’t agree with their principles or values,” Molina, 52, told The Daily Signal in an interview. “But I wanted to make a difference with myself and my co-workers, and I felt that if I got involved, I could make some changes from within as a shop steward.”
“But my personal values never matched the union’s,” Molina said. “The further I got up the chain of command, I realized it was all an illusion and that what they were presenting to the rank and file was not true.”
When SEIU Local 668 asked Molina and co-workers to sign a new membership card in January 2018, he balked after carefully reviewing the language on the card.
Molina, who has three daughters with his wife of 32 years, says he refused to sign because he would be obligated to pay dues regardless of his membership status.
“Even if I wanted to go work for someone else, the union would have the ability to take money straight from my personal account if I had signed,” he told The Daily Signal.
SEIU Local 668 declined to comment for this report.
‘A Pre-Emptive Campaign’
It’s not just that leaders of public sector unions in Pennsylvania are reluctant to allow Molina and other members to resign, but that a state law locks in government employees to pay union dues against their will.
Now a federal court could rule that unconstitutional, or state legislators could amend the law to secure free speech rights.
A section of state law specifies that public employees may resign union membership only during a 15-day window before their contracts expire.
Public sector unions such as the Service Employees International Union stipulate that Molina and other members must submit a resignation letter by certified mail within that 15-day window.
But this “maintenance of membership” provision of Pennsylvania’s Public Employees Relations Act 195 doesn’t require unions to inform workers of the resignation window. And the state’s public payroll systems automatically deduct union dues from paychecks until employees, including Molina, find a way to unwind themselves from membership.
Even then, government workers who choose not to belong to unions have been required to pay “fair share” fees to keep their jobs.
What this means for Pennsylvania civil servants such as Molina—who differ with union leaders on a range of policy questions—is that they must spend part of their work day paying for political activism by the union that they don’t support.
“They had this emergency mandatory meeting in January [2018], where they said the old [membership] cards were invalid and we had to sign new ones,” Molina said of Local 668. “What they were doing was a pre-emptive campaign to avoid the legal ramifications of an unfavorable ruling in the Janus case.”
In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2018 that “agency shop” laws requiring nonunion government workers to pay union fees violate the First Amendment rights of those who object to the political agenda of the union.
Alito made the point that individuals are not just free to speak, but also free to “refrain from speaking” and to “eschew association for expressive purposes.”
The labor laws at issue in the Janus case violate the “constitutional command” protecting citizens against government coercion, Alito argued: “Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable violates that cardinal constitutional command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be universally condemned.”
Lawmakers Respond
Rep. Greg Rothman, a Republican state lawmaker from Pennsylvania’s Cumberland County, introduced a bill to amend the law to allow government employees to resign from a union anytime they like, without a window to do so or any other restrictions.
“The public sector unions in Pennsylvania are extremely political, and collectively they are probably the biggest spender on political campaigns in the state,” Rothman said in a phone interview, adding:
They take political positions, which may not in a lot of cases represent the political views of their workers. Part of the First Amendment isn’t just about what I can say, but what someone says on my behalf, and you shouldn’t have your money going towards opinions that aren’t your own. You should also have a right to resign from an organization that doesn’t reflect your views, and you should not be required to be part of an organization in order to have a job.
Rothman’s bill, HB 506, is one of several that seek to turn the Supreme Court’s Janus ruling into law by amending existing Pennsylvania statutes.
State Rep. Kate Klunk, a York County Republican, introduced a measure, HB 785, that would require public sector employers to notify workers of their rights.
“The notice requirement is very simple and the onus is all on the public sector employer—be it the school district, municipality, or state government—to inform nonunion members that they are not required to make a payment to the union unless they affirmatively consent to do so,” Klunk told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.
“The unions have no express duty in any of these notices, as it’s only the employer that’s required to send out these notices. This is not pro-union or anti-union. This is just about telling employees what their rights are.”
As an attorney, Klunk has expressed concern that Pennsylvania will continue to face costly litigation until state laws are changed to conform with the Supreme Court ruling that struck down mandatory union dues.
Pennsylvania at Epicenter
The Janus ruling provided Molina with the opening he had sought to make a clean break.
In letter dated July 16, 2018, Molina resigned from SEIU Local 668. Although he wanted to quit the union before the high court’s decision, he knew he would have been compelled to pay “fair share” fees as a nonmember.
In his letter, Molina informed the SEIU that he wanted the deductions of dues to stop immediately. But they didn’t.
“Even after the Janus ruling, they continued to take dues out of my paycheck,” Molina said of the union. “According to their definition, after I resigned, I would been a nonunion member. There were others who resigned, but I was the most outspoken. I encouraged other workers to read the new cards carefully.”
The SEIU rejected Molina’s resignation letter, arguing that he had to remain a member under the “maintenance of membership” provision that applies to his contract.
Molina continued to protest, and was dismissed from his Lehigh County government job last summer, a few weeks after resigning from the union. Before 2004, he had worked in the private sector but didn’t belong to a union.
In January, Molina filed a lawsuit against SEIU Local 668, challenging the union’s refusal to allow him to resign and alleging that the union violated his constitutional rights under the First and 14th amendments.
“Under my contract, it says if I don’t pay my dues, the union can ask for my termination,” Molina told The Daily Signal. “That’s what I believe ended up happening in the end. I was terminated. I cannot work as a civil servant again for the state of Pennsylvania until this case is resolved.”
The Fairness Center, a nonprofit, public interest law firm based in Harrisburg, represents Molina.
“What Francisco [Molina] did for himself here was wonderful because he refused to sign a card that would have locked him into paying union dues regardless of his membership,” said David Osborne, president and general counsel of the Fairness Center. “He read the language and decided it didn’t make sense for him. So, what this case is about is a statute in Pennsylvania called ‘maintenance of membership’ that gives unions the right to keep members from resigning for years at a time.”
The Legal Landscape
The Fairness Center filed a separate but related class action lawsuit against Local 668 on behalf of public employees, challenging the “maintenance of membership” law on constitutional grounds. Both cases fit into a larger national picture.
The Daily Signal sought a response from SEIU Local 668 on the specifics of this article. The union responded to the request, but declined to comment.
Two other organizations—Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit, public interest law center based in Illinois, and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation—also entered the fray in Pennsylvania to challenge the legality of the continued deduction of union dues that have cost government workers thousands of dollars.
This was a significant development because the two legal advocacy groups partnered to represent Mark Janus, a child support specialist for Illinois state government, in the Supreme Court case that overturned mandatory union dues for government workers.
Liberty Justice Center has filed two lawsuits, one in Lebanon County on behalf of four mental health workers, and another in Philadelphia on behalf of a caseworker for the state’s Department of Health and Human Services.
Both of the center’s lawsuits cite the high court’s ruling in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees in arguing against the deduction of unions dues on First Amendment grounds. Both cases also challenge the unions’ current standing as the exclusive representative of the government workers who sued.
For its part, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation took up the case of a school bus driver in the Wallingford-Swarthmore School District who is asking for a refund of union fees that were withdrawn from his paycheck after he resigned his union membership.
The foundation filed suit against Teamsters Local 312 and the school district on behalf of the bus driver, who resigned from the Teamsters after the Janus ruling. The foundation also set up a website called MyJanusRights.org.
‘A Real Pushback’
The lead plaintiff in the Janus suit has some advice for unions that he shared with The Daily Signal.
“The public sector unions have been spending money on litigation, fighting the Janus decision and fighting workers that are resigning,” Janus said in an email. “Wouldn’t that money be better spent on representing their membership in matters that would better provide for the unions’ original purpose?”
Janus added:
It is cumbersome to resign from public sector unions. Now there is a real pushback by the public sector unions to prevent workers from leaving, in spite of the Janus ruling. What they are doing is denying these workers their First Amendment rights.
Meanwhile, the Fairness Center continues to cut its own path with active Janus-related litigationagainst AFSCME Council 89 and AFSCME Council 13, both in Pennsylvania.
Another active case that could have reverberations across Pennsylvania concerns a liquor store clerk, John Kabler, who alleges that Local 1776 of the United Food and Commercial Workers gave him false information and misled him into joining the union. Kabler also claims union leaders resisted his efforts to resign, and in March the center filed suit against the union on his behalf.
The public interest firm also settled some Pennsylvania cases in which the union agreed to allow their client to resign without paying more union dues. But these settlements were reached before the constitutionality of the “maintenance of membership” statute faced judicial scrutiny.
Charles Mitchell, president and CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation, a free market think tank based in Harrisburg, said he thinks he knows why.
“There’s a reason why unions like AFSCME and SEIU are relying upon maintenance of membership rules and the window periods in Pennsylvania,” Mitchell said in a phone interview. “It’s because it’s the next obvious piece of coercion available to them.”
“I think it’s very clear that these restrictions are not consistent with workers’ rights and with the First Amendment,” he said. “I also believe one of the many people in Pennsylvania challenging these restrictions will be successful. The Janus opinion is extremely important, and Mark Janus is a hero.”
While the Fairness Center continues to apply pressure in court, Mitchell sees another ace in the hole available to proponents of labor reform in the form of the new legislative proposals.
“There are many lawmakers who are now standing up and saying our laws are inconsistent with the Janus decision and we need to fix them and inform workers of their rights,” he said. “They are doing this despite all the money and influence available to public sector unions, and that’s a very positive development.”
Klunk, the Republican lawmaker from York County, would like to see her bill become law this year. Although Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, has received political support from organized labor, Klunk says she is hopeful the governor will allow the bill to move forward.
Even if Wolf doesn’t the sign the measure, it could become law without his signature if it passes both houses of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.
“Right now, we are clogging up our courts with additional cases over an issue that has already has been settled at the federal level before the Supreme Court,” Klunk said. “This benefits no one, and my bill in its current form repeals an unconstitutional provision of our state law. Wolf is the governor of all the people, not just the unions, and he could sign the bill or choose not to sign it and let it become law.”
The Daily Signal contacted Wolf’s office by phone seeking comment for this story and emailed his press secretary, J.J. Abbott, asking whether the governor has a position on the legislative proposals to amend Act 195.
The Daily Signal also asked Abbott whether the governor had any concerns about the costs of litigation attached to a labor issue that already had been settled at the federal level. Abbott had not responded by publication time.
SEIU Local 668 has filed a motion seeking dismissal of Molina’s case. Osborne, head of the Fairness Center, said he expects the court to make a ruling on the union’s motion within the next month.
“The union has to bear a very heavy burden to demonstrate the case is mute and they will no longer violate the law,” Osborne said. “I don’t think there is any way the union can bear that burden.”
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-05-14 06:15:592019-05-14 06:18:30He Tried to Quit His Union. The Law Didn’t Let Him, and He Lost His Government Job Instead.
Over 4 million Floridians for Ron DeSantis for governor. Thousands voted for now Governor DeSantis based on his promise to implement E-Verify. During this session the Florida state legislature failed to bring E-Verify to the floor for a vote. It is time for Governor DeSantis to take action to implement E-Verify statewide.
We will stand for the rule of law. We won’t allow sanctuary cities. And we will stop incentivizing illegal immigration, which is unfair to our legal immigrants, promotes lawlessness and reduces wages for our blue-collar workers. [Emphasis added]
Having illegal aliens fill jobs that can, should and would be filled by legal Florida citizens is wrong. Implementing E-Verify will eliminate the incentive to come to Florida.
Please take immediate action to correct this most important problem for our Great President and the American citizens to Make America Great Again.
Facebook has put enormous efforts into launching witch-hunts against those who fight for democratic freedoms–like Milo, Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, going so far as to reference them as “dangerous individuals”, right alongside the truly dangerous, violent-minded, anti-Semitic, racist nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan who has actually called openly for 10,000 men to murder white policemen, using a Baptist Church platform.
The obvious unmatched, biggest threat today is jihad terror, yet Facebook does not see fit to put resources into tackling that threat. Facebook has recently allowed a platform to a genocidal anti-Christian Muslim cleric and in fact, consulted with Hamas-linked CAIR over who gets banned from its platforms. Now Facebook stands accused of “automatically generating celebratory jihadist videos and promoting terrorist business pages.” Cracking down on jihad terror and murder is just not important enough to Facebook higher ups. They would rather torment and damage those who battle against this grave evil. Facebook is in effect continuing to aid and abet jihad terrorists.
A business page generated by Facebook for al-Qaeda received over 4400 “likes” and provided the group with “valuable data” to use when recruiting new followers
“Facebook accused of auto-generating terrorist propaganda, creating page for al-Qaeda”, by Fatima Olumee, 9 News, May 10, 2019:
Social network Facebook has been accused of automatically generating celebratory jihadist videos and promoting terrorist business pages.
The videos were uncovered by an anonymous whistleblower who filed a complaint with a US regulator, accusing Facebook of misleading investors on its efforts to clean up the platform.
A five-month study of more than 3000 accounts found Facebook’s artificial intelligence algorithms were creating ‘memories’ and video celebrations for active users, including accounts of extremist organisations such as al-Qaeda, white supremacist groups, and self-identified Nazis.
A business page generated by Facebook for al-Qaeda received over 4400 “likes” and provided the group with “valuable data” to use when recruiting new followers, according to the complaint.
Islamic State and al-Qaeda terrorists are also openly networking on Facebook’s website, according to the whistleblower’s research.
The confidential complaint, supported by the US National Whistleblower Centre (NWC)……
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2019-05-12 05:36:552019-05-12 05:39:05Facebook accused of auto-generating jihadist propaganda, creating page for al-Qaeda with 4,400 likes
After reading my story yesterday about the Canadian doctor who murdered his wife when she wanted a divorce, a reader from Tennessee sent me news from just this week about how domestic violence is part and parcel of Islamic law.
This story is not from the Middle East or even from Muslim centers in states like Minnesota and Michigan. It happened in Nashville.
The abused wife escaped and went to the police. (Hope she is now in a safe place!)
Muslim Domestic Violence Survivor Reveals Truth About the Religion of Peace
A surprisingly honest report filed with police about a husband’s assaults on his wife is pretty much in line with what sharia law tells him he can do.
The couple is from Iran.
How did they come to live in Nashville? Refugee resettlement? Who knows.
Anyway, the wife, after she “was able to escape the home living situation,” went and filed a report with police.
Ah, that cultural enrichment ‘new Americans’ bring to us backward folks.
She explained that even though there were prior calls to police for domestic violence, no reports were filed because her husband, Sina Mousavi, “would not permit her to speak to police based on ‘marital and religious rights from their country of Iran’”.
That’s called sharia law.
According to the wife, during the couple’s fights, her husband Sina Mousavi, would “shove napkins in her mouth, and pull a knife and place it against her side to scare her. She also reports he would place his hands around her neck, but says he never left any marks.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-05-11 16:44:022019-05-11 16:53:19Violence Against Women Sanctioned under Sharia Law
“It’s pornography.” That’s how one mom described California’s new guidelines for sex ed.
Patricia Reyes, who spoke up Wednesday during a hearing in Sacramento, can’t fathom sending her children to school to learn about things that would be embarrassing for most of us to say out loud—let alone teach to elementary students.
“If this continues, I’m not sending them to school,” she said.
And she won’t be the only one.
Hundreds of parents protested the new framework Wednesday—which includes everything from lessons in self-pleasure to transgenderism.
As CBN pointed out, the guidelines even go so far as to encourage kindergarteners to think about whether they might identify with another gender.
Are you kidding? At that age, they don’t even know what gender is. The goal, officials say, is to create “an environment that is inclusive and challenges binary concepts about gender.”
Of course, the state Board of Education wouldn’t admit that. Instead, President Linda Darling-Hammond said, “We’re on a careful trajectory here not to be introducing things as though they are endorsed in some way.”
That’s interesting, since LGBT activists are tripping over themselves to tell California what a wonderful job they’ve done. And, as we all know, their goal isn’t to just “introduce things.” So many want to indoctrinate and recruit—and nothing short of that will suffice.
At one point, CBN notes, the state was considering cartoon drawings of genitalia for 5-year-olds and material for the older kids on bondage and homosexual acts.
“An earlier draft of the guidelines also suggested high schoolers read the book: ‘S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Sexuality Guide to Get You Through Your Teens and Twenties.’”
After enough protest, these requirements were dropped.
But there’s still more than enough content to outrage parents—like the opt-out policy, which is allowed for portions—but not the LGBT lessons. That, most families have argued at various meetings, is a direct attack on parental authority.
“Now we’re teaching kids how to have a robust sex life? Not everything under the sun needs to be taught to our kids, with no moral judgment,” California Family Council’s Greg Burt, told The Sacramento Bee.
And the anger over the state’s curriculum isn’t just anecdotal. Stephanie Yates, founder of Informed Parents of California, says 20,000 people have joined the group since she created it last year.
And what about the teachers? They don’t want to send these messages any more than parents want their kids to hear them.
“Teachers are afraid they will be forced to teach concepts that go against their conscience, and use non-binary terms or else they could lose their jobs,” said Brenda Lebsack, who works for Santa Ana Unified.
Some of you may roll your eyes and dismiss this as “just California.” Don’t be fooled. This same extremism is coming to a classroom near you—and parents need to be equipped and ready to mobilize like these families have.
This sex ed countermovement in California is a testament to the involvement of a lot of moms and dads, teachers, and churches. As bad as some of these guidelines are, they would have been a lot worse if Californians hadn’t been actively engaged.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-05-10 20:13:512019-05-10 20:21:17California’s Sex Ed Guidelines Suggest Asking Kindergartners What Gender They Identify As
Released this week, the Council on American Islamic Relationsreportcontends that over a thousand foundations (listed in the appendix) fund a vast array of organizations who hate Muslims (they say).
Of course my first thought was, well who funded this report endorsed by the disgraced Southern Poverty Law Center and who funds CAIR?
And, my second thought was that if there is so much money sloshing around in the “Islamophobia Network,” why haven’t I seen any of it?
I know a lot of citizen volunteers/writers working on educating America about political Islam who work for zip, zero, nada!
Mainstream Charities Are Unwittingly Funding Anti-Muslim Hate Groups, Report Says
The nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization says that charitable foundations, mostly mainstream, are directly and indirectly giving millions of dollars to anti-Muslim hate groups.
The hate groups benefiting include ACT for America, the largest anti-Muslim group in the country and a registered nonprofit.The group is described by the Anti-Defamation League as an organization that stokes “irrational fear of Muslims.”The Council on American-Islamic Relations looked at the money trail from 2014 to 2016 from over 1,000 largely mainstream charities to 39 anti-Muslim groups that it calls the “Islamophobia Network.”The report, called “Hijacked by Hate,” was released Monday. It found that nearly $125 million was funneled to these groups. That includes money that was anonymously given through the charitable foundations of wealth management groups like Fidelity Charitable and Schwab.
Others, like CAIR, call it a hate group for its spreading of misinformation about Islam and fearmongering around the principles Muslims live by.
“Traditional charities and foundations — commercial foundations, community organizations, community foundations, religious foundations — these foundations in philanthropy that make America what it is have been undermined,” said Abbas Barzegar, director of research and advocacy at CAIR. “[They are being] used, or in my mind exploited, to funnel anonymous money from wealthy donors to the Islamophobia Network.”
NOTE: Ms. Heidi Beirich (SPLC), an endorser of CAIR’s report, is responsible for the SPLC’s anti-Muslim extremist list that included yours truly. A lawsuit subsequently forced them to remove her discredited research from their website.
If you are in store for a rainy weekend where you live, snuggle up with this report and let me know if you find any juicy nuggets worth sharing.
This post is filed in my ‘Charity fraud’category where you will find more posts on CAIR and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
It’s not just high-profile anti-leftist political commentators such as Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson and Laura Loomer who are being banned from Facebook and de-platformed elsewhere.
Facebook has forced a well-known Christian apologist off their platform for things he posted years earlier — such as death and rape threats he received and even a famous anti-Nazi picture — after repeatedly being reported by online by Muslim activist group targeting Christians.
Apologist Dr. David Wood finally gave up Facebook because every time a suspension finished he was suspended again almost immediately, within hours, for older and older posts and for longer and longer periods. He was effectively banned through the use of rolling suspensions.
You can watch his explanation here on YouTube, at least until they boot him.
Let’s be clear, compared to the garbage fire of content on Facebook and Twitter, Wood’s criticisms are as soft and cuddly as the media’s coverage of President Obama, cute kitty cuddly.
Here are a few of the posts he was suspended for:
✞ Posting a threat from someone who wanted to rape his mother in front of him;
✞ Posting another threat from someone who wanted to rape his wife in front of him with the vilest of language throughout. Wood posted “Feel the love, the religion of peace” and a screenshot of the post and he was suspended;
✞ Posting another threat from someone who wanted to “chop chop chop” his head off;
✞ Posting a historical photo showing Hitler with one of his ideological allies — including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a Muslim leader. This is a famous photo;
✞ Posting another old black and white historical photo of a lone man who famously stood in a crowd refusing to give the Nazi salute while everyone around him did. All he wrote was “Be this guy.”
For each of these offenses, his posts were hidden from view, he was informed that “This post goes against our community standards” and was suspended. Community standards.
The theme in all of the threats was that they came from self-identified Muslims on Twitter or Facebook because Wood is critical of Islam. Those accounts seem to remain in good standing.
The group that has organized to get Wood and several other Christians banned is called Cyber Jihad, and they bragged about it on YouTube. The Islamic group openly targets and reports Christians who say anything negative about Islam (Wood tends to remind listeners that Mohammed married a 9-year-old girl, and this is still practiced in parts of the Muslim world.)
The Cyber Jihad group has also gone after other Christians, such as Sam Shamoun and Al Fadi, for posting about Islam.
Of course about anything can be said about Christianity because Christians do not seek to shut down the free speech of Muslims, atheists or anyone else critical. In fact, horrific things can be posted about Jesus Christ, and there will rarely be any response by Facebook or the other social media giants.
But if you post something negative about the Prophet Mohammed, expect to get a visit from the Facebook thought police, or Twitter censors.
EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Rod Thomsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRod Thomson2019-05-10 16:38:092019-05-10 16:50:03Cyber Jihadists Are Getting Christians Banned On Facebook
The New York Times no doubt considers it quite a coup to have obtained and published President Donald Trump’s tax return information from 1985 to 1994. But doing so violated Trump’s right under federal law to the confidentiality of his tax returns.
The Times—which reported that Trump’s businesses lost $1.17 billion during the 10-year period—has no more right to Trump’s tax returns than it has to mine or those of any of you reading these words.
Confidentiality, as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in 1991 in U.S. v. Richey, is essential to “maintaining a workable tax system.”
Taxpayer privacy is “fundamental to a tax system that relies on self-reporting” since it protects “sensitive or otherwise personal information,” said then-Judge (now Supreme Court Justice) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1986 in another case when she served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Federal law—26 U.S.C. §7213(a)(1)—makes it a felony for any federal employee to disclose tax returns or “return information.” Infractions are punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine as high as $250,000 under the Alternative Fines Act (18 U.S.C. §3571).
Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of The New York Times story, tax returns themselves, as well as tax return information such as these IRS transcripts (which are a summary of the tax returns), are protected from disclosure by federal law. And this provision applies to private individuals as well as government employees, a fact that should be considered by the New York Times’ source.
According to the newspaper, it did not actually obtain Trump’s tax returns but “printouts from his official Internal Revenue Service tax transcripts, with the figures from his federal tax form, the 1040, from someone who had legal access to them.”
The Times quotes a lawyer for the president, Charles J. Harder, as saying that the tax information in the story is “demonstrably false” and that IRS transcripts, particularly from the days before electronic filing, are “notoriously inaccurate.” However, that claim is disputed by a former IRS employee now at the liberal Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
The president tweeted Wednesday in response to the Times story: “Real estate developers in the 1980’s & 1990’s, more than 30 years ago, were entitled to massive write offs and depreciation which would, if one was actively building, show losses and tax losses in almost all cases. Much was non monetary. Sometimes considered ‘tax shelter,’ … you would get it by building, or even buying. You always wanted to show losses for tax purposes….almost all real estate developers did – and often re-negotiate with banks, it was sport. Additionally, the very old information put out is a highly inaccurate Fake News hit job!
Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of The New York Times story, tax returns themselves, as well as tax return information such as these IRS transcripts (which are a summary of the tax returns), are protected from disclosure by federal law. If the newspaper obtained this information from an employee of the IRS, that employee will be in big trouble if he or she is identified.
Could the editors and reporters at The New York Times be prosecuted for publishing this information?
Section (a)(3) of the law makes it a felony for any person who receives an illegally disclosed tax return or return information to publish that return or that information. But it’s unknown if the bar on publication by a media organization could survive a First Amendment challenge.
What we do know is that in previous incidents, the government did not attempt to prosecute the publisher of tax return information. In 2014, the IRS agreed to pay the National Organization for Marriage $50,000 to settle a lawsuit after an IRS clerk illegally disclosed the organization’s tax return.
The clerk gave the tax return to Matthew Meisel, a former employee of Bain & Company, who gave it to the Human Rights Campaign (a political opponent of the National Organization for Marriage). The tax return was then posted on the Human Rights Campaign website and published by The Huffington Post.
Although the IRS paid to settle the lawsuit, none of the individuals or organizations involved in the illegal disclosure and publication were prosecuted.
If such a prosecution were attempted, there is no doubt that a First Amendment challenge would be filed.
The courts would then have to answer an important question: Are the interests of the government in an effective tax system and that of citizens in maintaining the confidentiality of their financial information outweighed by the First Amendment right of the press, and by and the public’s interest in obtaining financial information on elected officials?
In the midst of this illegal disclosure to The New York Times, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced Monday that he would not comply with a demand by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., to provide the committee with copies of tax returns filed by Trump and eight of his companies for the last six years.
Mnuchin sent a letter to Neal telling him that “the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution requires that congressional information demands must reasonably serve a legitimate legislative purpose.”
The treasury secretary is correct. Numerous court decisions hold that legislative investigations must have a legitimate legislative purpose. Mnuchin says that Neal’s request “lacks” such a legitimate purpose.
The court decisions supporting Mnuchin’s decision include the 1957 decision in Watkins v. U.S., in which the Supreme Court told the House Un-American Activities Committee that “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure” the “private affairs of individuals.”
Neal has claimed that the legislative purpose of getting the Trump tax returns is to examine how the IRS audits presidents. But as Trump’s legal counsel has pointed out, Neal didn’t ask for the tax returns of any other presidents and hasn’t asked any questions of any kind about IRS policy and procedures for such audits.
Mnuchin tells Neal in his letter that he is willing to provide the congressman with complete information on “how the IRS conducts mandatory examinations of Presidents, as provided by the Internal Revenue Manual.”
If examining how the IRS audits presidents is really Neal’s legislative purpose—as opposed to simply wanting to expose anything embarrassing the committee finds in Trump’s tax returns—IRS information on its policies and procedures would be the only information the House committee would need.
So the Treasury Department has put House Democrats in check for now. It will probably be up to the courts to see who achieves checkmate when it comes to the Trump tax returns.
Now the interests of protecting the privacy of taxpayers warrants the opening of a government investigation to find the leaker who provided the Trump tax information to The New York Times.
The IRS and the Justice Department should investigate how this disclosure happened, find out who did it, and prosecute anyone who violated the law.
Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research.Twitter: @HvonSpakovsky.
Dear Readers:
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-05-10 06:13:112019-05-10 06:13:23New York Times May Have Broken Law by Publishing Trump’s Tax Returns
The White House in an email released the following statement and May 9th video on the growing border crisis:
Border Patrol chief: Our national security is at risk
If there wasever a moment for a sense of urgency from Washington about America’s border crisis, that time is now.
“As of Sunday, only seven months into the year, we have now surpassed the total southwest border apprehensions of every fiscal year since 2009,” U.S. Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost told members of a U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee yesterday.
U.S. Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost Testifies About the Border Crisis:
The White House email notes:
Because of dangerous loopholes in American immigration laws, today “family units” and unaccompanied children account for 64 percent of all apprehensions at the southern border. Illegal immigrants and human smugglers “have received the message loud and clear,” Provost says.
“Bring a child—you will be released.”
That policy creates an unmitigated humanitarian and security disaster. One problem is that illegal immigration is dangerous and often relies on criminal smugglers to breach the border. Bringing young children along in that journey puts them at grave risk.
An even more pressing danger comes from “fake families”—a growing phenomenon where children are unwillingly paired with nonparent adults to game U.S. asylum laws. Once entry is granted, those children become expendable, sometimes being appallingly “recycled” back across the border for use by another asylum-seeker.
Congress needs to take action—and that doesn’t simply mean building more temporary facilities, Provost said. “It’s like holding a bucket under a faucet. It doesn’t matter how many buckets you give me if we can’t turn off the flow.”
