Not Letting A Crisis Go To Waste: Trump To Ban Immigration

Remember yesterday when I said that there were still six months before the election and anything could happen? Well, last night anything did. Amid the pandemic, crashing oil futures, and rumors of Kim Jong Un’s impending death, President Trump threw fuel on the dumpster fire that is 2020 by announcing in a late-night tweet that he would issue an Executive Order to temporarily ban all immigration into the United States.

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

In light of the attack from the Invisible Enemy, as well as the need to protect the jobs of our GREAT American Citizens, I will be signing an Executive Order to temporarily suspend immigration into the United States!

307K

10:06 PM - Apr 20, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

132K people are talking about this

As with many Trump tweets and statements of policy, exactly what he means is unclear at this point. The president does not say whether his Executive Order will suspend all travel, travel from foreigners who want to immigrate permanently, or all foreign visitors to the United States. There is no word on how it will affect students at US universities, visa lottery winners, or people with family members who are US citizens or legal residents. The president also did not specify how long the ban would be in place.

Due to the pandemic, international travel is already highly restricted. Land borders with Canada and Mexico are closed to nonessential travel and foreign nationals from 31 countries are not being allowed into the US.

The White House did not immediately respond to questions about the announcement, a possible indication that it was a spur-of-the-moment tweet by the president. Politico reported last night that the Department of Homeland Security was still drafting the order and that it was possible that it might include a provision for temporary guest workers, including migrant farm workers.

When asked about the rationale for the sudden decision, a top DHS official said, “22 million unemployed Americans and counting due to COVID-19.”

Another Administration official told CNN that the order would suspend “some” work visas for a “temporary 120 days or so.” The official cited unemployment concerns as a reason for the ban.

It also is not clear if President Trump has the authority to unilaterally suspend immigration. The president promised a “Muslim ban” in the 2016 campaign and the Supreme Court ultimately upheld his travel ban to several countries, many of them predominantly Islamic, but the Court also struck down earlier versions of the policy. The specific nature of the Order, as well as the president’s emergency authority, will be examined closely by the courts.

With the Trump Administration promoting the idea that the pandemic is trending downward and the first states preparing to reopen, it seems odd to ban immigration at this late stage of the crisis. However, the president’s tweet and the statement from the DHS official belie that the real reason for the move is economic.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) confirmed this suspicion with a tweet that said, “All immigration to the United States should halt until every American who wants a job has one!”

Rep. Paul Gosar, DDS

✔@RepGosar

Thank you, @realDonaldTrump! All immigration to the United States should halt until every American who wants a job has one! https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1252418369170501639 …

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

In light of the attack from the Invisible Enemy, as well as the need to protect the jobs of our GREAT American Citizens, I will be signing an Executive Order to temporarily suspend immigration into the United States!

507

10:13 PM - Apr 20, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

253 people are talking about this

During the 2008 economic crisis, Rahm Emanuel famously said, “Never allow a crisis to go to waste.” That seems to be what President Trump is doing here. The president has consistently opposed and restricted legal immigration throughout his term in office, the new Executive Order seems to be a typical Trump-era policy in search of a justification.

Ironically, the Order probably will not help unemployed Americans. Research shows that limiting immigration does not provide jobs for US citizens but instead limits economic growth.

“The results of the state-level analysis indicate that immigration does not increase U.S. natives’ unemployment or reduce their labor force participation,” said an economic study by the National Foundation for American Policy reported in Forbes. “Instead, having more immigrants reduces the unemployment rate and raises the labor force participation rate of U.S. natives within the same sex and education group.”

“Immigrants may boost consumer demand, start their own businesses, and reduce offshoring . . . of manual-labor intensive jobs in the U.S.” the study found, adding that, “U.S. natives tend to move into communications-intensive jobs in response to an inflow of immigrants.” 

As with many Trump policies, the immigration ban will be warmly received by the president’s supporters, but probably not so much by the rest of the country. Numerous polls have shown that a large majority of Americans believe that immigration is a good thing. Indeed, the president’s unpopular policy of family separations at the border and alarmist rhetoric about migrant caravans may have played into the GOP’s 2018 midterm election losses.

The new immigration will do little to stop the spread of Coronavirus and little to boost employment. What it will do is reinforce the notion that Donald Trump and Republicans are bigots in the minds of many voters. A policy move that makes your party look racist is probably not a wise choice six months before an election. Nevertheless, Trump is going to be Trump and let the chips fall where they may.

Originally published on The Resurgent.

Myth Busted: Georgia Heartbeat Bill Would Not Imprison Women For Miscarriages

Rumors have been going around that Georgia’s new fetal heartbeat law contains a number of onerous provisions. Opponents of the law claim that it would allow authorities to lock up women who have miscarriages or cross state lines to get abortions. If that sounds stupid enough to raise red flags with you, you aren’t alone. Rather than taking the internet’s word for it, I decided to go straight to the source to find the truth.

The text of HB 481, the “Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act,” is readily available and the full bill runs less than 10 pages. With much of the text struck through from previous versions, it’s a quick read so I encourage others to read the bill as well. Quotations in this article are taken from the Georgia General Assembly website’s current version of the bill as of May 11, 2019. Here’s what the law actually says.

 The core provision of the law is the statement, “ Unless otherwise provided by law, any natural person, including an unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat, shall be included in population based [sic] determinations.” This means that unborn children with a detectable heartbeat are considered to be people for legal purposes. For example, the law specifically states that “any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat… shall qualify as a dependent minor” for purposes of filing a Georgia income tax return.

The law also defines what an abortion is and is not. The new law defines abortion as the “act of using, prescribing, or administering any instrument, substance, device, or other means with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy with knowledge that termination will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of an unborn child.”

Further, the law provides two exceptions that it says will not be considered to be an abortion. These are “removing a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion” and “removing an ectopic pregnancy.”

The law defines “spontaneous abortion” as “the naturally occurring death of an unborn child, including a miscarriage or stillbirth.” This definition puts lie to the claim that women could be prosecuted for a miscarriage.

The law is not a total abortion ban as it does provide limited exceptions that allow an abortion to take place after a heartbeat has been detected. These include cases of “rape or incest in which an official police report has been filed alleging the offense” and the “probable gestational age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or less” or when a “physician determines, in reasonable medical judgment, that the pregnancy is medically futile.”

The law defines “medically futile” to mean “in reasonable medical judgment, an unborn child has a profound and irremediable congenital or chromosomal anomaly that is incompatible with sustaining life after birth.” Note that abortions performed when the pregnancy is deemed to be medically futile are not subject to the 20-week limitation.

The law further stipulates that “if the child is capable of sustained life, medical aid then available shall be rendered” and requires that abortions “performed after the first trimester” take place “in a licensed hospital, in a licensed ambulatory surgical center, or in a health facility licensed as an abortion facility by the Department of Community Health” and be performed by a licensed physician. If abortions are performed in violation of these requirements, the woman is entitled to collect civil damages, but this excludes the accidental results of treatment or if a “woman sought an abortion because she reasonably believed that an abortion was the only way to prevent a medical emergency.”

“Medical emergency” is defined as “a condition in which an abortion is necessary in order to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.” This exception does specifically exclude mental and emotional conditions as well as the threat that the “that the pregnant woman will purposefully engage in conduct which she intends to result in her death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

Penalties under the law are focused on abortionists, not mothers. The bill states, “In addition to any criminal or civil penalties provided by law, failure by any physician to conform to any requirement of this Code section constitutes unprofessional conduct for purposes of… to medical licensing sanctions."

The law does amend the Georgia code to stipulate, “For the homicide of an unborn child, the right to recover for the full value of the life of such child shall begin at the point at which a detectable human heartbeat.” This does open the question of whether an abortion can be considered homicide when the law goes into effect next year. The law does not specifically address this question, but the implication considering a child to be a person is that it would.

While the new law does not specify penalties for the “homicide of an unborn child,” previous Georgia law already declared “feticide” and “voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child” to be a felony with a penalty of between one and 20 years. As previously written, the law excluded abortions, people providing medical treatment, and “any woman with respect to her unborn child” from prosecution. The State of Georgia would obviously have no jurisdiction in abortionist that take place in other states.

The outlandish claims being propagated by the pro-abortion crowd are easily debunked by reading the law’s text. The law contains reasonable exceptions for rape, incest, stillbirths, and medical emergencies. The law specifically protects women in the case of miscarriage and when their life is deemed to be in danger. Finally, the law does not create a criminal penalty for either abortionists or women who seek abortions. Instead, the focus is on preventing physicians from performing elective abortions under the threat of losing their medical licenses and facing civil penalties.

This myth is busted.

Originally published on the Resurgent

Trump's Bump Stock Ban Takes Effect Tomorrow

President Trump’s bump stock ban goes into effect tomorrow. Every owner of a bump stock in the United States is required to have either surrendered or destroyed the accessory by March 26 except for three plaintiffs who, at least temporarily, won court battles to keep their bump stocks. There is no grandfather clause for current owners of the devices.

The three plaintiffs in a consolidated case sued the federal government in December and January, claiming that it was unconstitutional for the government to arbitrarily reclassify the devices to ban them under a law intended to ban fully automatic weapons. As previously reported by The Resurgent, the ATF under President Obama declined to ban bump stocks because they did “not provide an automatic action — requiring instead continuous multiple inputs (trigger pulls) by the user for each successive shot” and were therefore not subject to the Federal Firearms Act.

After the mass shootings in Las Vegas, where the murderer used bump stocks, and Parkland, Fla., where no bump stocks were used, President Trump ordered the Justice Department to act. The result was a decision to reinterpret the law and unilaterally decide that bump stocks were subject to the Federal Firearms Act after all.

After the ban was announced in December, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Firearms Policy Foundation, and the Madison Society Foundation launched a separate legal challenge. Notably absent from the challenge was the National Rifle Association, which posted a statement online that essentially said that the group was not fighting the ban because it could have been worse.

U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich, a Trump appointee, turned down the challenge in February, saying in his decision, “That this decision marked a reversal of ATF’s previous interpretation [of the meaning of bump stock] is not a basis for invalidating the rule, because ATF’s current interpretation is lawful and ATF adequately explained the change in interpretation.”

David Codrea, one of the plaintiffs who received a stay from a different judge, described the grounds for the lawsuit in an article in Ammoland. These include at least 10 separate determinations by the ATF that a bump stuck was not an automatic weapon, the FBI’s refusal to comply with FOIA requests for information about the weapons used in the Las Vegas shooting, and questions about whether Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker had the legal authority to sign off on the ban.

In a separate article in Ammoland, Codrea wrote that the stay means, “Named plaintiffs, including this correspondent, will not be subject to enforcement action after the ban goes in effect Tuesday. It also means everyone else will be subject to arrest, prosecution, and punishment.”

Upon implementation of the bump stock ban, President Trump will have become a more successful anti-gun president than Barack Obama. Yet, ironically, Mr. Trump will retain the support of a significant share of the pro-Second Amendment community and the nation’s largest gun-rights organization.

It is also ironic that sales of bump stocks have not decreased since the announcement of the ban last December. As of Tuesday, March 26, bump stocks will be outlawed and only outlaws will have bump stocks. Under the Trump Administration’s new rule, many law-abiding gun owners who have owned bump stocks for years will now be considered outlaws.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Donald Trump Just Restricted The Second Amendment More Than Barack Obama

Although he is still endorsed by the NRA, President Trump just presided over the biggest federal restriction on the Second Amendment since President Clinton signed the assault weapons ban in 1994. On Tuesday, the Trump Administration officially banned bump stocks in a regulatory move that bypassed Congress.

In a scenario reminiscent of the worst fears of gun owners, the new federal regulation makes it illegal to possess a bump stock. Any person who possesses one of the rapid-fire devices must either surrender it to authorities or destroy it when the new regulation takes effect. Per the Associated Press, the deadline to comply will be 90 days after the regulation is published in the Federal Register. That is expected to happen Friday, meaning that bump stock owners will have until late March to decide how to dispose of their property.     

The regulation was signed into law by President Trump’s newly appointed Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker. The president had directed then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “propose regulations that ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns” last February. CNN reported in November after the election that the regulation had been finalized and would be issued soon.

The bump stock ban seems to be a solution in search of a problem. The devices, which use the recoil of the gun to help the shooter pull the trigger rapidly, are not typically used in crimes. The exception was the October 2017 Las Vegas massacre in which the murderer used a rifle with a bump stock to kill 59 people. Bump stocks make it difficult to aim and shoot accurately, but concert-goers in Las Vegas were packed into such a tight area that aiming was hardly necessary.

Ironically, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms under Barack Obama determined that a regulatory bump stock ban was not legal under current law. In 2013, the assistant director of the ATF wrote to a member of Congress that bump stocks “are not subject to the provisions of federal firearms statutes” and were therefore legal. The letter stated that the devices did “not provide an automatic action — requiring instead continuous multiple inputs (trigger pulls) by the user for each successive shot” and were therefore not subject to the Federal Firearms Act. In the expert opinion of the ATF, a bump stock ban would require Congress to pass new legislation.

Now, five years later, the Trump Administration is arguing that the Obama-era ATF was wrong and that bump stocks are in violation of the Federal Firearms Act. The laws of physics have not changed over the past five years. Guns with bump stocks still require separate trigger pulls to fire multiple times. Neither has the Federal Firearms Act changed. The only thing that has changed is the Trump Administration’s interpretation of the law.

Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, told the AP that the organization was “disappointed” by the ban. Baker said that the regulation “fails to address the thousands of law-abiding Americans” who bought the devices before the Trump Administration deemed them to be illegal and argued that current owners should be grandfathered in with an amnesty.

The Trump bump stock ban contains many of the worst aspects of liberal gun control plans and sets a dangerous precedent. First, the ban is arbitrary and will have little, if any, effect on public safety. The rationale for the ban, that no one really needs a bump stock, is the same rationale that many liberals use to advocate banning AR-15s and guns in general. Proponents say that bump stocks are a gun accessory and not protected by the Second Amendment, but the same argument could be made for many other items including scopes, reloading equipment, magazines, and ammunition.

More disturbing is that the Trump Administration is bypassing Congress to invoke the ban in violation of the Federal Firearms Act. Current law defines a “machine gun” as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” However, as the ATF pointed out in 2013, that does not describe a bump stock’s operation. Reading the law to mean something that it does not say is usually strongly criticized by conservatives.

The new regulation goes further in restricting the Second Amendment than anything successfully enacted by Barack Obama, who was notoriously anti-gun. The Republican Congress killed Obama’s proposed gun restrictions limiting the former president to issuing a series of Executive Orders that fell short of banning any weapon or accessory.

President Trump’s bump stock ban is a blueprint that future anti-gun Democrat presidents can use to bypass Congress and further restrict the Second Amendment. In addition to being an anti-gun measure, the move is a flagrant abuse of executive authority.

There is no word on whether the NRA will endorse President Trump for reelection. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

New York Ruling: Bars Can Ban Trump Supporters

A Manhattan judge ruled this week that bars in the city can refuse service to Trump supporters. On the surface this seems to be unjust, but conservatives and constitutionalists should applaud the ruling, which follows the law and small government principles.

It all started in January 2017 when Greg Piatek, a 30-year-old accountant from Philadelphia wore his red “Make America Great Again” cap to The Happiest Hour, a New York City watering hole. Piatek says The Happiest Hour staff was not happy with his headgear and eventually forced him to leave.

The New York Post reported that bartenders noticed the hat after Piatek and his friends had been served the first round of drinks. Piatek says they asked if the hat was a joke and when he was finally able to order a second round, the bartender allegedly “slammed the drinks down.” Piatek claims that the other bartenders ridiculed his hat and refused to serve him and that, when he complained about the service, the manager told him, “Anyone who supports Trump or believes what you believe is not welcome here. And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you.”

Piatek sued the bar claiming that the incident “offended his sense of being American,” per the Post. Piatek’s lawyer, Paul Liggieri, also claimed that the MAGA hat had religious significance.

“The purpose of the hat is that he wore it because he was visiting the 9/11 Memorial,” Liggieri said. “He was paying spiritual tribute to the victims of 9/11. The Make American Great Again hat was part of his spiritual belief. Rather than remove his hat, instead he held true to his spiritual belief and was forced from the bar.”

“Plaintiff does not state any faith-based principle to which the hat relates,” the judge ruled. “Here the claim that plaintiff was not served and eventually escorted out of the bar because of his perceived support for President Trump is not outrageous conduct.”

The instinctive reaction from many on the right will be to condemn the ruling, but the judge was correct in dismissing the lawsuit. In the first place, the evidence indicates that Piatek and his friends were not upset when they left the bar. The credit card receipt indicates that Piatek’s group ran up a $186 bar tab, to which Piatek voluntarily added a $36 tip. The 20 percent tip is an indication that the group was not displeased with the service that they received.

Second, even though critics of Trump’s movement have called it a cult, support for Donald Trump is not a religious belief and Piatek did not make the case that his hat was religious clothing at the time of the incident. The claim that a MAGA hat is religious garb makes a mockery of true religious persecution.

Although many conservatives seem to have thrown free trade by the wayside, the Constitution does protect the freedom of association and, by extension, the freedom not to associate. Likewise, businesses have traditionally had the right to refuse service to patrons who break their rules. Rules might prohibit sitting at a table without ordering or they might prohibit certain types of clothing.

There are limits to the right to refuse service. Race and religion have long been protected from discrimination by both state and federal laws. New York law prohibits “public accommodations” from discriminating because of “race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, or disability or marital status.” The New York Constitution also protects the free exercise of religion.

What the law does not do is protect patrons from political discrimination by a private business. There is no inalienable right to be served a cocktail while wearing a MAGA hat.

In fact, even the US Constitution does not guarantee the right to free speech in a private business. The First Amendment protects Americans from government censorship, not from being ejected from a bar because the patron engaged in an unpopular political expression.

While it’s tempting to try to claim the mantle of victimhood when someone on the right is ejected from a bar for wearing Republican garb, that isn’t a road that conservatives should want to go down. The inevitable result would be leftists filing a plethora of lawsuits against conservative businesses.

It would also result in a further expansion of government into private transactions between businesses and individuals. No conservative should want the government ruling on what political attire crosses the line as unacceptable. Those decisions are better left to the owners and managers of individual businesses.

Trump supporters may be justly angry that Piatek was forced to leave the Happiest Hour, but suing the bar is not the best solution. A better solution is for like-minded individuals to vote with their wallets and patronize a different establishment, one where MAGA hats are at least tolerated, if not welcomed. In a city the size of New York, with establishments that cater to every sort of clientele, there is certain to be a bar where MAGA hat-wearing, Trump-supporting visitors to the city can enjoy their drinks in peace.

Originally published in The Resurgent

72 terror convictions from countries on travel ban list

Many news outlets have reported that there had been no Americans killed by terrorists from any of the countries that were part of the temporary travel ban imposed by President Trump’s Executive Order. It is true that no successful attacks were carried out by immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan or Syria, but it now appears that there is more to the story.

The Washington Times reports that at least 72 immigrants from the countries that make up the ban have been convicted of terrorism-related crimes since Sept. 11, 2001. The data compiled by the Senate Judiciary Committee and analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies also points out at that at least 17 of the convicted terrorists entered the country through the federal refugee program singled out by Mr. Trump. Many of the immigrants were convicted of minor crimes such as fraud, but the report indicates that more than 30 of the convicts served at least three years in jail for their crimes.

One of the most serious incidents involving a terrorist from the countries singled out by Mr. Trump was the Nov. 28, 2016 stabbing spree at Ohio State University. The perpetrator of the attack was a Somali refugee who had also lived in Pakistan. The attacker injured 11 people before killed by a police officer.

The Times noted that James Robart, the federal judge who originally blocked the Executive Order, was unaware of any of the arrests and seemed to be unaware of the OSU attack as well. Judge Robart asked a lawyer for the Justice Department, “How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?” The lawyer was unable to answer the question.

“Let me tell you. The answer to that is none, as best I can tell,” Robart replied. “So, I mean, you’re here arguing on behalf of someone that says ‘We have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries,’ and there’s no support for that.”

The issue surfaced again on appeal when a three-judge panel noted in its ruling that the government “has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.” The lawyers for the government apparently failed to present any of the convictions or the reports of the OSU attack as evidence to support their case.

Records of the terror convictions should have been easily accessible to both the lawyers arguing the case and the judges ruling on it. Jessica Vaughan, who authored of the CIS report, said the information could have been found quickly “if they or their clerks had looked for it.”

Recalling news reports of a terror attack that occurred only three months ago would not have even required legal research. A researcher would only have had to google “Somali terrorist,” but apparently no one did.

The revelations of numerous terror convictions that were never presented into evidence, even when a judge directly questioned a Justice Department attorney about them, raise new questions about the competence of the Trump Administration. Was the Administration aware of these terrorists when it crafted the temporary immigration ban? If so, why were they not presented to support the Administration’s policy until after it had lost in, not one, but two court appearances?

Spelling and grammar errors in government documents and releases make the Trump Administration look amateurish and inept. Failing to do such basic research before such a high profile case is even worse.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Including Iraq in immigration ban is slap in the face to ally

When it comes to the seven countries on President Trump’s list for a temporary immigration ban, one of these things is not like the others. Visitors from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia are prohibited from coming to the United States for at least 90 days. For Syrians, the ban is indefinite. While it is understandable why the president might feel it necessary to closely screen immigrants from the Middle East, Iraq doesn’t necessarily fit in with the other countries on the list.

As a country that is openly hostile to the United States, people coming from Iran should obviously bear close scrutiny. Iran has already been accused of cheating on the nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama Administration. It has a long history of supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and since 1984 has been named by the State Department as a state sponsor of terror.

The two other countries currently designated as state sponsors of terror are also on Trump’s list. Syria received the designation in 1979 and Sudan in 1993. Sudan was once home to Osama bin Laden. Both countries have been torn by civil wars in recent years. The war in Sudan began in 2003 and was known for atrocities in the Darfur region. The Syrian civil war began in 2011 and has stoked a refugee crisis that led to terrorist attacks in Europe.

Yemen, like Syria and Sudan, is in the throes of a civil war. Iran-backed Houthi tribesmen are fighting both al-Qaeda and government forces supported by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Drone strikes against al-Qaeda in Yemen are frequent. It was in Yemen that President Trump launched the first drone attacks of his administration.

Somalia is probably best remembered by most Americans as the scene of the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu depicted in “Black Hawk Down.” Somalia is also home to pirates who terrorized Indian Ocean shipping in the early days of the Obama Administration. There are reportedly links between the pirates and al-Qaeda.

The sixth country, Libya, has also been a hotbed of terrorism since the fall of Muammar Gadhafi. Libya was the scene of the 2012 terrorist attack on the US consulate that resulted in the deaths of four Americans.

Of the seven nations singled out by President Trump, one could be considered hostile to the United States and three are known sponsors of terrorism. Five could be considered failed states without strong central governments that could reliably help to vet refugees and other immigrants.

Iraq is different from the rest.

Admittedly, Iraq is in the midst of a war, but the nation does have a functioning democratic government. The country is friendly to the US and many Iraqis have fought and died alongside American soldiers as they battled al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed extremists. Since 2014, the Iraqi army has been waging a campaign against ISIS, again with US help.

Iraq is an American ally and to include it on a list of enemies and failed states is a slap in the face by the Trump Administration.

One of the Iraqi immigrants detained at John F. Kennedy airport in New York as the ban was implemented was Hameed Khalid Darweesh. Darweesh served as an interpreter with the US Army during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He later worked with American soldiers as a contract engineer in Iraq. Granted permission to resettle in the United States, Darweesh was just coming into the country when President Trump implemented his new policy.

It should be pointed out that there have not been any terrorist attacks -fatal or otherwise - in the United States or Europe by Iraqi. In fact, according to Politifact, there have been no fatal terror attacks in the US by anyone from the countries that make up Trump’s list. There has been one terror attack by Iranian-born US citizen and one attack by a Somali refugee. An additional attack was attempted by a man of Somali heritage who was born in Kenya. None of these attacks resulted in the deaths of victims.

There have been many terror attacks by immigrants from other Middle Eastern countries. The September 11 hijackers were predominantly from Saudi Arabia. So was Osama bin Laden. The Boston Marathon bombers were from Chechnya. The Times Square car bomber was from Pakistan. The terrorists who carried out the Orlando nightclub shooting and the San Bernardino shootings were born in the United States to parents from Afghanistan and Pakistan respectively. None of these nations are part of the immigration ban.

President Trump’s immigration ban seems poorly thought out and poorly executed. Keeping terrorists out the country is a worthy goal and a legitimate function of the federal government, but Trump’s approach seems amateurish and may cause more problems than it solves. Aside from the public relations nightmare, the policy’s worst problem is that it lumps an ally in with an enemy and a series of failed states while ignoring the source of most domestic terror attacks.

“This spits in the face of almost 16 years of cooperation with Muslim allies across the world," Kyle Dykstra, a veteran of the 82^nd Airborne Division who served in Afghanistan told the Chicago Tribune. "They can die for our security, but we can't extend that same security to them now.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Immigration ban could be expanded, even as resistance grows

Reince Priebus suggested on Sunday that President Trump could expand his immigration ban to other countries, even as resistance to the initial order grew. The White House Chief of Staff said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” that the president could issue new Executive Orders that might include restrictions on such countries as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Egypt.

The ban on the initial seven countries has caused as uproar as visitors to the US with valid visas were detained at ports of entry. A federal judge issued a ruling temporarily preventing the Trump Administration from deporting these detainees

The Wall Street Journal reported that the ban was enacted suddenly and secretly to prevent terrorists from circumventing the new security measures. Many immigration officials did not see the Order until after it was signed.

There were reports that several of the countries in the initial travel ban were considering retaliatory measures. CNN reported that Iran intended to take “reciprocal measures” to protest the Trump policy. An Iraqi investment magazine, the Baghdad Investor, reported that Iraq had implemented a policy similar to Mr. Trump’s on US citizens entering Iraq.

In many cities around the country, protesters took the streets to protest the policy. The Wall Street Journal reports that the State Department is taking the unusual step of drafting a cable to be signed by dissenting officials. The cable has not yet been released but reportedly has been signed by more than 100 mid-to-high level officials both in Washington and posted abroad.

Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) issued a joint statement criticizing Trump’s ban. “It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump’s executive order was not properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security.”

The senators note that the ban also applies to Iraqis who fought alongside American soldiers against ISIS and al-Qaeda and that the policy may backfire. “This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country,” they write. “That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.”

Fortune lists a growing number of Republicans who have gone on record as opposing Trump’s ban. Currently the list includes 18 Republican senators and congressmen from across the country.

Polling on the immigration ban has not yet been released, but Gallup’s daily approval rating showed a sharp uptick in disapproval of President Trump since the announcement of the ban last week. Disapproval of Trump now stands at a majority, 51 percent, while 42 percent approve.

Originally posted on The Resurgent

IRS and press harassment similar to other Obama scandals

The Obama Administration has become embroiled in three simultaneous scandals over the past few weeks. Much speculation has been made about what President Obama knew and when he knew it. Regardless of whether President Obama gave the order or had personal knowledge of spying on reporters or the harassment of conservative groups, the charges are well within the character of an administration well known for executive overreach and disregard for the law. The Obama administration has been hallmarked by disregard for the rule of law since its early days.

In the spring of 2009, the Obama Administration ignored established bankruptcy law to cast aside secured creditors of Chrysler and GM in favor of unsecured but better connected creditors such as the United Auto Workers pension according to National Affairs. Creditors were denied their right to have input on the company reorganizations through a sub rosa plan in which the assets of “old” Chrysler and GM were “sold” to “new” Chrysler and GM, bypassing creditors in the process. When some investors stood up for their rights, President Obama attacked them as “speculators” in a speech at Chrysler.

The closing of dealerships in the aftermath of the auto bankruptcies fueled speculation and rumors that the Obama Administration was using the auto bankruptcies to target political opponents. The Washington Examiner pointed out at the time that dealers on the list of closures had donated millions to Republicans, but only $200 to Obama. The list of closures seems to have been dictated by Steve Rattner, President Obama’s “car czar.”

On the heels of the auto bankruptcies came “Fast and Furious.” In the spring and summer of 2009, Democrats from Secretary of State Clinton to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) claimed that 90 percent of the guns used in Mexican crimes came from the United States. While claim is not accurate, thousands of the guns that actually did get to Mexico from the United States apparently were allowed across the border by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Whistleblowers later told Congress that they had orders to let smugglers take illegally purchased guns across the border into Mexico. As Examiner reported in 2011, several of the illegal weapons were found at the scene of the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 15, 2010. The guns turned up at numerous other crime scenes in Mexico as well. In 2011, another American officer, Jaime Zapata, was murdered in Mexico with a gun that had been tracked by the ATF according to CBS News. The Mexican government was not pleased with the revelations that the Obama Administration allowed thousands of illegal guns into their country.

After the BP oil spill in 2010, President Obama issued a unilateral moratorium on deepwater drilling. When a court ruled that the drill ban was unconstitutional, the Department of Interior still refused to issue new drilling permits. This led a federal judge to hold the Obama Administration in contempt of court for its “determined disregard” for its continued drilling restrictions.

In the spring of 2011, after dithering for months, President Obama approved U.S. intervention in the Libyan civil war. Obama notified Congress within 48 hours as required by the War Powers Act, but neglected to seek congressional approval within 60 days. Obama also failed to end American involvement within 30 days of the deadline for seeking congressional approval as required. The N.Y. Times called the Libya intervention “illegal” and said that it “set a troubling precedent that could allow future administrations to wage war at their convenience — free of legislative checks and balances.”

The matter is all the more stark because President Obama had said in 2007 that “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” After Libya, Politifact rated the statement a “full [flip] flop.”

Also in 2011, the Obama Administration’s loan to Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer, went sour. While most analyses of the Solyndra scandal focus on the poor judgment involved in making a loan that ultimately cost taxpayers $535 million according to Yahoo, laws might have been broken here as well. According to the Christian Science Monitor, it may have been illegal for the Obama Administration to restructure Solyndra’s loan to put private creditors ahead of taxpayers.

In 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the government to compel its citizens to purchase a private product, keeping Obamacare’s individual mandate intact. The legal status of other parts of Obamacare remains questionable. The mandate that all insurance policies cover contraceptive and abortifacient drugs has been successfully challenged in court as a violation of the freedom of religion.

Since 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services has issued more than 1,200 Obamacare waivers to companies according to The Hill. As noted in Examiner, the language of the Affordable Care Act did not permit such waivers. In 2013, Politico reported that members of Congress were secretly negotiating an exemption from Obamacare’s requirements under concerns that staffers would face sharp increases in premiums when Obamacare goes into effect.

More recently, faced with a $1.5 billion shortfall in funds to implement Obamacare, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius resorted to soliciting donations from insurance companies according to the Washington Post. As Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) points out in the Wall St. Journal, the Constitution and other laws do not permit the government to spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress. Soliciting donations from companies that Sebelius regulates is likely a conflict of interest as well.

Earlier this year, President Obama received a strong rebuke from a federal court for several appointments that he had made to the National Labor Relations Board. The president styled the appointments as recess appointments even though Congress was still in session. The decision, described on Examiner, stated that Congress, not the president, decided when it was in session and then went a step further, stating that recess appointments could only be used to fill vacancies that arise during a recess. A second appeals court issued a similar ruling in May after the NLRB ignored the first court’s ruling and continued to issue decisions on cases heard by the invalid members.

President Obama also has a record of issuing executive decrees when Congress fails to act. In December 2010, the EPA announced plans to regulate carbon after Congress failed to pass cap-and-trade legislation. At the same time, the FCC unilaterally issued “net neutrality” rules in spite of a court ruling stating that the agency did not have the power to regulate the internet. Before even asking Congress to enact new gun control laws, the president signed 23 executive orders relating to guns.

The new scandals, lying to public about Benghazi, spying on reporters to ferret out leakers within the administration, and using federal enforcement agencies to quash political opposition, are merely the latest in a long line of abuses of power by President Obama and his deputies. The common threads among all of the Obama scandals are abuse of executive power disregard of the law for political gain. The new trio of scandals is no different.

A form of this article was originally published as Atlanta Conservative Examiner.

Ten myths about gay marriage

Same-sex marriage is once again in the news. This week the Supreme Court is hearing two cases on same sex marriage, either of which could conceivably make gay marriage the law of the land and strike down the definition of marriage laws in place in 37 states and the federal government.

There are many myths and much misinformation surrounding the same-sex marriage issue:

Myth #1: Defense of marriage laws are “gay marriage bans.”

While the media and homosexual activists often refer to these laws as “gay marriage bans,” in reality they do often do not ban anything. The laws simply create a definition of marriage according to the government. The heart of the federal DOMA simply states, “… the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.''

Similarly, a North Carolina marriage amendment passed last year reads, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”

In other words, most state laws do not prevent same-sex couples from entering into private contracts or holding private religious marriage ceremonies. Likewise, nothing prohibits private companies from offering benefits to same-sex partners of their employees. Definition of marriage laws only mean that the government will not recognize, sponsor or encourage the union of same-sex couples.

The marriage amendment to the Georgia Constitution is more ambiguous on the issue of private ceremonies. Article I Section IV Paragraph I (a) reads, “This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.” In reality, however, Georgia does not persecute same-sex couples. Georgia would not be likely to object to a private religious ceremony and does not penalize companies who choose to offer benefits to same-sex partners.

Myth #2: Marriage laws violate the Equal Protection Clause.

In reality, rights are held by individuals, not by couples. This means that people of homosexual orientation have exactly the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. No one, not even a heterosexual, has the right to marry anyone they choose or whoever (or whatever) they happen to love.

According to USmarriagelaws.com, all 50 states have laws against bigamy, marrying more than one person at a time. All 50 states also have laws establishing a minimum age of consent to marry. In Georgia, the minimum age is 18, but 16-year-olds can marry with the consent of their parents or a judge according to Findlaw.com. Some states recognize common law marriages. Georgia is among the states that do not. Some states don’t allow cousins to marry. Georgia is among the 26 that do.

Definition of marriage laws are simply one more example of states legislating how their citizens want marriage to be treated. The laws apply equally to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Myth #3: The Constitution requires states to recognize same-sex marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Proponents of same-sex marriage argue that the Constitution requires traditional marriage states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in same-sex marriage states because the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires that states recognize “the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State….” In their view, this means that if a state like Massachusetts issues a marriage certificate to a same-sex couple, every other state is constitutionally required to recognize it. Section Two of the DOMA specifically states that federal law should not be interpreted this way.

In this case, the ruling by the First Circuit does not address Section Two. Subsequent lawsuits probably will. The Supreme Court could also choose to invalidate the entire DOMA when it hears this or other cases on the issue, but the question of the Full Faith and Credit Clause has not yet been addressed by the courts. In the future, Georgia might be forced by the courts to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states even though Georgia law prohibits such marriages.

It is evident that the original intent of the clause was not to engineer a back door way of forcing states to accept new laws. Instead, the clause was intended to allow the states to honor similar laws and proceedings in other states. To require a state to honor a marriage license between a same sex couple merely because one of a minority of states that permit those unions had issued the license is outside the bounds of the intent of the clause and would set a disturbing precedent that liberals would probably rather not follow through to other issues. For example, a majority of states have enacted “shall issue” laws for concealed gun carry permits. Perhaps blue states such as Illinois, Wisconsin, California and New York should be forced to allow these gun owners to exercise their right to carry when they travel.

Myth #4: The DOMA is inconsistent with state’s rights and federalism.

Proponents present the DOMA as a case of the federal government usurping the state power to define marriage. In reality, the DOMA defines marriage only for the federal government. Section Two of the DOMA protects state rights by stipulating that traditional marriage states cannot be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage from states that have chosen to recognize same-sex marriages. Lawsuits to mandate same-sex marriages and invalidate state definition of marriage laws usurp the will of the people and their elected representatives.

Myth #5: Only religious nuts oppose same-sex marriage.

Proponents of same-sex marriage portray supporters of traditional marriage as bigots and religious fanatics, while arguing that the U.S. is not a theocracy and that the separation of church and state prohibits the government from taking a religious view of marriage. In reality, much of the support for traditional marriage can be traced to secular arguments.

It is in the vital national interest of the state to ensure that children, the next generation of taxpayers, have a stable family unit. There is strong evidence that children need both a mother and a father. It seems that the absence of fathers is particularly damaging to children. In the book “Life Without Father,” David Popenoe noted that the absence of fathers was strongly linked to many societal ills. Sixty percent of rapists come from fatherless homes, as do 72 percent of young murderers and 70 percent of long-term prison inmates. When viewed in these terms, there is a compelling government interest to encourage marriage relationships between men and women as a stable unit for childrearing. The burden of proof should be on those who seek to overturn thousands of years of history, tradition, and law that point to both a mother and a father as the best unit for raising children.

A 2012 a study seemed to confirm what many people already suspected. The New Family Structures Study, published in Social Science Research in July 2012, has one of the largest sample sizes of any study on the subject as well as improved methodology over previous studies. From more than 15,000 people, the author of the study, Mark Regnerus, found 175 people with mothers and 73 people with fathers who were in gay relationships for at least part of their childhood.

One surprising finding from the study was that Georgia has more children living with same-sex couples than any other state. In general, gay families live in the same places heterosexual families do. Gay families are not concentrated in homosexual meccas like San Francisco.

Not so surprising is the fact that gay families tend to be less stable than traditional families. Only two of the 175 children of lesbians reported spending their whole childhood with a single set of parents. None of the children of gay men spent their entire childhood with the same two parents. According to the study, only 57 percent of the children spent more than four months with the same lesbian parents. Only 23 percent had the same parents for three years.

This instability in the family leads to problems for the children. Regnerus said in Slate, “Such respondents were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, and report… more sexual victimization.”

Even though not all heterosexual couples bear children, biologically the potential is always there. Even couples who cannot have or do not want to have children have the possibility of procreating, whether purposely or by accident. Additionally, the same need for a stable, nurturing family unit with parents of both genders applies to adopted children as well.

Further, there is the argument that recognizing same-sex marriages would be expensive for cash-strapped governments. The First Circuit ruling estimates that more than 100,000 couples are affected by the federal DOMA. Recognizing these marriages would generate untold billions of dollars of costs that were not planned for by government actuaries. Likewise, extending marriage tax credits to same-sex couples would mean millions or billions in lost tax revenues. With governments already paying out more in benefits than they take in, they simply cannot afford to pay out more in benefits.

Other rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution have limitations as well. The First Amendment does not permit a person to yell “fire” in a crowded theater or protect a slanderer. The Second Amendment does not mean that a person can manufacture pipe bombs in their home and permits states and cities to enact reasonable regulations on guns.

If marriage is merely a statement of love without a societal consequence, then why limit it to only two people? Why not allow polygamy as well? Why limit it to people at all? Recent news stories have detailed how different women have shown their love by marrying the Eiffel Tower, the Berlin Wall, a dog, and a dolphin, One woman even married herself.

Myth #6: Definition of marriage laws are similar to interracial marriage bans.

Same-sex marriage proponents point to older state laws against interracial marriage as a similarly unjust regulation. In reality, interracial marriage was very different from same-sex marriage. Where same-sex couples are biologically incompatible and infertile, interracial couples were of the male and female genders and created a fertile couple.

Bans on interracial marriage did violate the Equal Protection Clause because they treated people differently based on race. Under these laws, two men, one black and the other white, did not have an equal chance to marry a given woman. Definition of marriage laws are different in that they hold that the state will not recognize the marriage of any person to any other person of the same gender, treating everyone equally.

Myth #7: Homosexuality is genetic.

No one knows exactly why some people are homosexual. There is no conclusive proof that it is genetic. It may well be a combination of both “nature” and “nurture.” The increasing numbers of bisexuals seem to indicate that something other than genetics is at work.

The issue is not whether gay people can help being gay or whether they can be “cured” of homosexuality. The issue is whether a fundamental building block of society that rests on centuries of tradition should be reordered on a whim.

Myth #8: Same-sex couples need marriage so they can visit in the hospital.

The need to be able to visit partners in the hospital has long been a justification for same-sex marriage, but Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor and gay rights activist, wrote as far back as 2008 that, “Hospital accreditation standards include those who play a significant role in a patient's life, even if not legally related, within the definition of family. Neither gay nor straight couples should have to marry to visit each other in the hospital.”

Myth #9: Same-sex marriage now has widespread acceptance.

A number of recent polls on Polling Report show that the nation is split over the issue. While most polls show advocates of same sex marriage with the advantage, polls often seem to overstate the popularity of redefining marriage. For example, polls in North Carolina seemed to indicate that the marriage amendment there might be defeated or that the vote would be close. In reality, the amendment passed by a margin of more than 20 percent. One theory is that people are not being honest with pollsters because of the heavy-handed rhetoric used by the media and the left on the issue.

It was only in 2012 that a majority of voters finally endorsed same-sex marriage. In most cases, when the issue went to the voters it wasn’t even close. In contrast, the votes that approved gay marriage in Maryland and Maine were very close. Georgia’s marriage amendment passed with 76 percent in favor according to CNN. To date, 31 states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and woman. Six more states define marriage by statute. Only nine states and the District of Columbia do and in most of those states the law changed by judges.

Myth #10: Conservatives are using same-sex marriage as a wedge issue and attempting to force their morality on others.

The reality is that no conservative wants to be talking about same-sex marriage. The most important issues that we face are the economy and the likelihood that Iran will soon have nuclear weapons. President Obama and the Democrats are using the issue to rally a base that is disillusioned by the president’s poor performance on economic issues.

When same-sex marriage is in the news, most often it is because the left has made it an issue. As the ruling itself notes, the federal DOMA was a response to a 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in a lawsuit filed by homosexual activists. Hawaii’s legislature then defined marriage in 1994 and Congress passed the DOMA, introduced by Georgia congressman Bob Barr, with broad bipartisan support in 1996. President Bill Clinton signed the DOMA into law. When judges in Massachusetts ruled in 2003 that the state could not deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, other states started enacting defense of marriage laws to prevent judicial activists from issuing edicts redefining their own marriage laws.

In reality, as Ryan Anderson wrote in National Review, the question is not whether same-sex couples will be allowed to express their love for each other; “the question is whether the rest of society will have the freedom to choose which type of relationship to honor as marriage” and whether a minority can force their view of morality on the nation at large.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/list/ten-myths-about-the-gay-marriage-debate?cid=db_articles