Tag Archives: executive orders

The Recent History Of The Porous Border

Posted on by

On Sunday, Rich Lowry posted an article at The New York Post about the decisions made early in the Biden administration that created the border crisis we have now. You might be able to convince some people that the crisis was simply the unintended consequence of bad decisions (not done deliberately), but the fact remains that those bad decisions were made.

The article recalls the decisions made almost immediately after President Biden took office:

The Feb. 2 order emphasized an effort to “enhance lawful pathways for migration to this country” and revoked a slew of Trump rules, executive orders, proclamations and memoranda.

The sense of it was that there’s nothing we can or should do on our own to control illegal immigration; rather, we had to fix deep-seated social, economic and political problems in Central America instead.

It called for getting more refugees into the United States, using parole to let more migrants join family members here, enhancing access to visa programs and reviewing whether the United States is doing enough for migrants fleeing domestic or gang violence, among other things. 

And it put on the chopping block numerous Trump policies that had helped establish order at the border, from Trump’s expansion of expedited removal, to his termination of a parole program for Central American minors, to his memorandum urging the relevant departments to work toward ending “catch and release.”

Most important, it targeted two of the pillars of Trump’s success at the border: the Migrant Protection Protocols, better known as Remain in Mexico, and the safe-third-country agreements with the Northern Triangle countries that allowed us to divert asylum seekers to Central American countries other than their own to make asylum claims. 

 

When Facts Contradict The Narrative

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Federalist posted an article about the crisis at our southern border. For more than three years, President Biden has been complaining that he can’t do anything about the border unless Congress passes bills that fund Ukraine. He chooses to overlook the fact that on his first day in office he overturned the Executive Orders passed by President Trump that sealed the border. He also chooses to overlook the fact that he not only refused to build the wall–he sold the parts to build it for pennies on the dollar. (article here)

The Federalist reports:

President Joe Biden has vehemently denied any blame for the years-long U.S. southern border invasion with claims that Congress, not the president, must act to defend the nation.

“I’ve done all I can do,” Biden said last month on the White House lawn. “Just give me the power.”

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the same thing two weeks ago. “There is no executive action that the president can take,” she said, to reinforce the border.

But now Politico is reporting that the president does, in fact, recognize the authority at his disposal to address the border crisis. On Wednesday, the paper reported the administration is “considering a string of new executive actions and federal regulations in an effort to curb migration at the U.S. southern border.”

“Among the ideas under discussion include using a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act to bar migrants from seeking asylum in between U.S. ports of entry,” the report read. “The administration is also discussing tying that directive to a trigger — meaning that it would only come into effect after a certain number of illegal crossings took place.”

The article concludes:

Lies about presidential powerlessness, however, have become the standard response from Democrats on the border. The number of illegal crossings has approximately doubled under President Biden, with 1.7 million “gotaways” evading capture over the three years he’s been in office. Last week, House Republicans formally impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for failing to keep U.S. borders secure.

“It certainly is a crisis,” Mayorkas said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” earlier this month, “But fundamentally, Congress is the only one who can fix it.”

Biden’s allies on Capitol Hill have made the same arguments. New York Rep. Dan Goldman called the House impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas an example of “taking the scalp” for “the MAGA base” to scapegoat blame for a crisis which can “only be addressed by legislation.”

While Democrats continue to say this on TV, Politico reports more executive orders for border action are in the pipeline, indicating the White House believes it can indeed address the border without the need for action from Congress.

The border remains open because country-club Republicans want cheap labor and Democrats want future voters. Meanwhile, Americans are being denied benefits and being forced out of jobs by illegal immigrants who are working outside the system. We need to close the border, and we need to enforce e-verify.

The Challenge Of Passing A Common-Sense Bill In The North Carolina Legislature

Posted on by

In North Carolina, we all remember Covid–the lockdowns, the school closings, the church closings, the vaccine mandates, etc., but we need also to remember that a lot of those things were the result of Executive Orders by Governor Roy Cooper. Unfortunately there was no check on those Executive Orders and they never seemed to expire. There is an effort to change that–House Bill 169.

House Bill 169 states:

In plain English, this bill reins in the powers of the Governor, brings the Council of State into the process, and limits the time an Executive Order can be in place unless the General Assembly concurs.

This is a good bill. Unfortunately, according to ncleg.gov, the bill has been in committee since February:

Ref to the Com on Judiciary 1, if favorable, State Government, if favorable, Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House on 2/23/2023

It’s time to call your Representative and get this bill moved out of committee and voted on.

 

It Could Happen Here

Posted on by

Yes, it could happen here. The December issue of America’s 1st Freedom includes an article by Gabby Franco, a former resident and Olympian from Venezuela. Ms. Franco chose to leave her family and country and come to America in 2004. In the article she explains what happened to change Venezuela from the richest country in South America to one of the poorest.

The article notes:

Venezuela is surrounded by paradisiacal turquoise waters in the north and an enigmatic rainforest in the south. There are no seasonal natural disasters—no hurricanes, tornados, blizzards or wildfires—such as there are in various areas of the United States. But an idea that the government should be given so much power that it could take away every right of the individual citizen—even their right to self-defense—did lead to the country’s ruination.

As a former citizen of Venezuela who became a U.S. citizen, I am now hearing many of the same things I heard in Venezuela from certain anti-Second Amendment politicians. I was an Olympic shooting competitor representing Venezuela and am now a lawful gun owner here in America. I don’t want to see this right being threatened again.

…Venezuela was once a place where people could find jobs, prosper, dream about their future and, with hard work, succeed, despite social and political issues. My parents were born in a rural town where there were not even flushing toilets until the late 1950s. My mom became a high-school teacher, and my dad was a machinist who dreamed of owning a machine shop. They married in the late 1970s and lived on my mom’s salary for several years as my dad built his business. They showed my siblings and me that dreams are possible with hard work and dedication.

During that time, law-abiding Venezuelans could own firearms and apply for a concealed-carry license. My father was an avid hunter who filled up the freezer with venison, duck, rabbit and any other animals he deemed tasty. Children could go to the gun range with their parents to practice the shooting sports.

…Hugo Chávez took power in 1999 and ruled the country via executive orders from the beginning. The terrible implications of his actions were palpable, as he aimed to take farmland away from its owners. Chávez did not waste time in pushing his socialist agenda, influenced by Fidel Castro, seeding hatred and envy amongst Venezuelans. I remember one time a person on a motorcycle stopped next to my dad’s SUV and spat on it. It was a symbolic gesture showing his hatred toward us for having a good vehicle. What this man did not know is that my parents were born poor but rose through their will and dedication.

Hugo Chávez’s actions did not go by unnoticed. A Cuban friend, whom I’ll call Jose, warned many of us at the gun range about Venezuela’s future under Hugo Chávez. These warnings were, as Gabriel Garciá Márquez wrote, a “chronicle of a death foretold.” It was indeed a hard pill to swallow for many, who often replied with something like: “That would never happen here. Venezuela is the richest country in the region. Venezuela is not an island like Cuba.”

Ms. Franco notes the danger to America:

I know it is hard to imagine that any of this could happen in America, but it is. The same divisive rhetoric I heard in Venezuela and then from Obama is used even more today. Venezuela’s current situation is the result of giving more power to the government, eliciting corruption, mismanagement and excessive spending; moreover, it was not an immediate change. Socialists took Venezuelans on a one-way journey to misery one step at a time. Unfortunately, I see America heading in that direction if we continue with the current socialist agenda that favors a powerful government, gun control, more regulations and a politicized justice system. Thus, it is imperative that Americans rally to preserve our Constitution and our nation by voting out anyone who wishes to undermine our constitutional rights.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is chilling to hear her story and realize that the same thing could happen here.

 

Putting Legislative Action Back In Congress Where It Belongs

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Hot Air reported that a federal judge in New Orleans will hear the case regarding Joe Biden’s executive order imposing a moratorium on the sale of new drilling leases to oil and gas companies.

The article quotes the Associated Press:

A federal appeals court in New Orleans hears arguments Tuesday about whether President Joe Biden legally suspended new oil and gas lease sales shortly after taking office because of climate change worries.

The case has not been tried but a federal judge blocked the order, saying only Congress could suspend the sales.

Federal lawyers say the government has broad power to hold, cancel or defer lease sales.

The article reports:

The plaintiffs appear to have a fairly well-developed argument here. The President and the Department of the Interior only have the ability to offer drilling leases because Congress granted them that authority long ago. There is no provision in the existing federal law allowing for the process to be “paused.” In fact, the opposite is true. In a 1987 update to the law, it specifically states that such leases “shall be made available four times per year” in states with eligible federal lands.

In other words, Biden’s executive order not only gummed up the normal process established by Congress, but it may have been a violation of federal law. It’s not as if he has to worry about his own Justice Department trying to prosecute him for this, but the contrast between the claims of the White House and the laws passed by Congress is glaring.

The article concludes:

The only opposition to the new lease sales these days is actually coming from the oil and gas companies themselves. Industry executives are hesitant to expand their current operations for a variety of reasons. For one thing, there is a shortage of workers available to staff up new operations at the moment. Also, inflation impacts the oil and gas industry as much as anyone else. All of the costs associated with putting up a rig and starting to drill have risen. If the price of oil suddenly starts to crater again when production increases, they could wind up losing money on new drilling sites.

In any event, this entire mess began when Joe Biden took office and decided to keep a campaign promise by shutting down drilling on federal land. The predictable results have been damaging across the board and the President is very late to the party in terms of making a course correction now.

We were energy independent when President Biden took office. We need to be there again.

Starting Off With A Bang

Posted on by

On Sunday, The Conservative Review posted an article about Glenn Youngkin, the newly-sworn-in Governor of Virginia.

The article reports:

The new Republican leadership in Virginia — Gov. Glenn Youngkin, Lt. Gov. Winsome Sears, and Attorney General Jason Miyares — went scorched earth upon entering office, which officially happened Saturday.

Youngkin signed a host of executive orders fulfilling key campaign promises, while Miyares fired more than two dozen staff members in the AG’s office the day before taking office.

The article lists some of the executive orders signed by the Governor:

The first order Youngkin signed “delivers on his Day One promise to restore excellence in education by ending the use of divisive concepts, including Critical Race Theory, in public education.”

…The second order empowers parents to decide whether their children wear face masks at school, the fourth order initiates an investigation into the alleged wrongdoing by the Loudoun County School Board regarding sexual assaults, the sixth order declares Virginia open for business, orders seven and eight address human trafficking and anti-Semitism, and order nine begins the process to withdraw Virginia from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

Meanwhile, Youngkin’s two executive directives cut “job killing regulations” by 25% and rescind the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for state employees.

“It’s Day One, and we are going to work just like we promised,” Youngkin said in a statement.

There were also some changes made by the new Virginia Attorney General:

On Friday, Miyares informed 30 staff members in the Virginia attorney general’s office, including 17 attorneys, that they would not have a job in his office, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported.

“During the campaign, it was made clear that now Attorney General-elect Miyares and Attorney General Herring have very different visions for the office,” a spokeswoman for Miyares told the newspaper. “We are restructuring the office, as every incoming AG has done in the past.”

Miyares has pledged to be tough on crime.

If the individual states are considered laboratories for the federal government (which was the intention of our Founding Fathers), it will be interesting to see what impact the changes in Virginia (and their probable success in improving the quality of life in the Commonwealth of Virginia) will have on other blue states.

When Lawlessness Begins At The Top

Posted on by

President Biden has a unique style as President. Laws that should be voted on by Congress are simply passed by edict. On January 24th, CNN reported that President Biden had signed 30 executive orders in his first three days in office. There was no attempt made to get any of his policy changes through Congress. Unfortunately, other Democrats have followed his example of ruling by edict rather than ruling by law.

On November 1, The Carolina Journal posted an opinion piece titled, “How long will we allow a dictator to rule?” That is a really good question both on the federal and state level. Some of the actions of President Biden are impeachable offenses, but impeachment will never happen as long as the Democrats control the House of Representatives. Some of the actions of Governor Cooper are impeachable, but until the Republicans in the North Carolina House of Representatives develop a spine, impeachment will not happen in the state.

The opinion piece reminds us:

On March 10, 2020, Gov. Roy Cooper declared what became an unlawful state of emergency that has now lasted over 19 months with no end in sight. For those who think the term dictator is hyperbole, consider the following. To date, he has issued 83 executive orders that have limited the free exercise of religion by forbidding gatherings, the right to free speech by curtailing the operation of government, the right to peaceably assemble unless you were doing so for one of his favored causes (e.g. BLM protests), the right to personal property by forcing business closures or restrictions, and the right to bodily autonomy with mask and vaccine mandates, all without legislative input, due process, or equal protection. In addition, Cooper has issued a record 64 vetoes, more than all other N.C. governors combined (35), while politically intimidating Democratic members of the legislature to prevent a veto override. Finally, under state law, “A state of emergency declared pursuant to this section shall expire when it is rescinded by the authority that issued it.” Therefore, Cooper has absolute rule as the head of the executive branch, can block any bill he does not like from the legislative branch, and has the protection of a Democrat majority on the State Supreme Court in the judicial branch.

We the people are responsible

Having learned the lessons of tyranny under British rule, our state forefathers and their successors intentionally made our governor one of the weakest in the nation. In the first N.C. state constitution of 1776, the governor was elected by the legislature for one-year terms with very little authority. But like the nation of Israel in the Old Testament who wanted a king, over time, we too wanted to be like other states. Since then, we began popular elections in 1836 with single two-year terms, expanded to single four-year terms in 1868, allowed governors to serve two successive terms starting in 1971, first passed the Emergency Management Act in 1977, and was the last state in the union to give our governor veto power in 1997.

We the people are sovereign

According to Article I, Section 2 of our state constitution, “All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.” Therefore, as a government instituted by the consent of the governed, we do not have to accept this state of tyranny, nor should we.

Recently the North Carolina legislature passed a bill that would limit the duration of a declared emergency and therefore the governor’s power to continue to abuse the declared emergency. As expected, the governor vetoed the bill.

The opinion piece concludes with a possible solution:

Now before you dismiss the idea due to the lack of a two-thirds majority of senate Republicans needed to convict, you need to know that state law on impeachment has one critically important wrinkle from the presidential impeachment process. As Dallas Woodhouse pointed out in his recent article on the State Supreme Court recusal issue, once a state official is impeached by a simple majority vote in the House, state law stipulates that “every officer impeached shall be suspended from the exercise of his office until his acquittal.” In other words, once the Republican-controlled House votes to impeach Gov. Cooper, Lt. Governor Mark Robinson would become acting governor until the Senate trial is over. And that is how we end this. We impeach Cooper, have Robinson end the state of emergency, and sign the Emergency Powers Accountability Act Rep. Bell mentioned, and the dictatorship is over.

I realize some will consider this the nuclear option and one that should be avoided at all costs. But how much more of our freedom must we lose? Must more lives be ruined? How many more children must be abused before we draw the line? Failure to resist tyranny is an open invitation for more. We the people are sovereign, and we will live under this dictator for only as long as we are willing.

I think it’s time that we the people put some pressure on our elected Republicans to end the current dictatorship.

 

When You Find Yourself Moving In The Wrong Direction, Should You Turn Around?

Posted on by

The Biden administration began with a flurry of executive orders. Many of them were questionable at best, and some have resulted in lawsuits against the administration. One executive order shut down the Dakota Access Pipeline.  Is is possible that the decision will be revisited?

Yesterday The Hill reported the following:

The Biden administration could decide Friday whether or not it is up to them to shut down the Dakota Access Pipeline. 

In January, a federal appeals court determined that the government did not adequately evaluate the environmental impacts of a 2017 easement that enabled the pipeline’s construction, and ordered the government to do a more robust analysis. 

The closely watched question on whether to stop the pipeline’s operations during this process is politically fraught, as as progressives have called for a shut down, while conservatives want to keep its oil flowing.

It may be that the only way to deal with the overreach of the Biden administration is through the courts.

The article notes that any decision is going to make someone unhappy:

Biden is facing pressure from both the left and right on the issue.

The pipeline’s critics say that it violates tribal treaty rights, while supporters argue that it helps transport U.S. energy.

Thirty-three Democrats recently wrote to Biden saying he should stop the pipeline from carrying crude oil between North Dakota and Illinois.

“By shutting down this illegal pipeline, you can continue to show your administration values the environment and the rights of Indigenous communities more than the profits of outdated fossil fuel industries,” they wrote.

Indigenous activists and celebrities have also recently urged the administration to do the same.

Meanwhile, congressional Republicans are supportive of the pipeline, and would likely push back on any moves to disrupt it.

The article concludes:

“The Army Corps of Engineers should be allowed to proceed as they are without political interference from the Biden Administration,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said in a statement in January. “This is not another opportunity to wage war on North Dakota’s energy producers.”

Republicans have staunchly criticized other recent moves made by the administration on energy, including the revocation of a border-crossing permit for the Keystone pipeline and temporary pause on new oil and gas leases on federal lands. 

The Biden administration might want to consider the consequences of giving up the energy independence America achieved during the Trump administration. Many Americans are old enough to remember the oil embargo of the 1970’s and are not interested in repeating the chaos that resulted from it.

Actions Have Consequences

Posted on by

The Blaze reported the following today:

The Biden administration is searching for answers on how to handle the current border crisis, which has seen the highest number of illegal immigrants at the U.S. southern border in the last 20 years, according to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and a senior official with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. President Joe Biden nullified many of former President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, but Mexican officials say that the previous administration’s tough stance on illegal immigration helped curb migrants from Central and South America from making the journey north.

Our southern border is in crisis. We are being overwhelmed with unaccompanied children, many of whom will be sold to sex traffickers and other unsavory characters. We simply do not have the facilities to shelter all of the people trying to get into the country. We are not able to test all of the people coming in, and we are releasing some who test positive for the coronavirus into the country. This is a recipe for disaster, and it was totally avoidable.

The article notes:

On his first day in the White House, President Biden stopped all construction on the border wall.

Biden created a task force to reunite children who were separated from their parents during the Trump administration.

Biden signed an executive action that “will direct the State Department, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to review guidelines and policies implemented under Trump to determine whether they are in line with the government’s desire to promote ‘integration and inclusion,'” according to NBC News.

The Biden administration reinstituted the Central American minors program, an Obama-era immigration policy that allowed parents who are lawfully present in the U.S. to request refugee status for their children who are living in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The Trump administration ended the program in 2017.

The Biden administration announced last month that it would phase out Trump’s “remain in Mexico” policy.

“Beginning on February 19, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will begin phase one of a program to restore safe and orderly processing at the southwest border,” the Department of Homeland Security said. “DHS will begin processing people who had been forced to ‘remain in Mexico’ under the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). Approximately 25,000 individuals in MPP continue to have active cases.” The Trump administration made an agreement with the Mexican government that allowed U.S. border officials to send back more than 70,000 migrants to Mexico under the Migrant Protection Protocols.

Biden’s proposed “groundbreaking” immigration reform plan is expected to provide a pathway to citizenship to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States.

Unless the Biden administration realizes the mess it has created and begins to change its policy, the situation at the border is only going to get worse. There is currently an order preventing reporters from doing ‘ride alongs’ with the border patrol and a gag order on the border patrol speaking to reporters. Because of the lack of transparency, many Americans are not aware of how miserable the conditions at our southern border are. We need transparency, and we need a change of policy.

Unintended Consequences?

Posted on by

Yesterday The Epoch Times posted an article about some of the unintended consequences of shutting down the Keystone XL Pipeline.

The article reports:

MIDLAND, S.D.—“My husband just called me … he just got fired,” said Laurie Cox, her voice trembling ever so slightly as she put on a brave smile. But it was impossible to ignore her now-crestfallen demeanor.

Cox is the owner of a hotel in Midland, a quaint town with a population of about 100. She had just finished talking about how business was booming late last year during which she had befriended people working on the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Workers would return from their shifts from a handful of nearby pump stations to unwind at the hotel since it was just a short drive away. Cox recalls having dinner together with the workers and lively chats night after night, many became close with her pet dog—a cute canine called Heidi.

Her husband, Wallace Cox Jr., was an industrial mechanic who had been setting pumps in Minnesota before he was laid off on Feb. 10. He was also scheduled to work on the Keystone XL pipeline—specifically on pumps in Montana in the upcoming summer.

The hotel’s picturesque scene crumbled almost instantly after President Joe Biden shut down the pipeline on Jan. 20 through an executive order. The cancellation was among one of his first moves as president.

The article also notes:

There are limited opportunities in small rural towns like Midland, Wallace said, as he described the pipeline project as “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for extra revenue for all our businesses to accumulate for the future.”

When asked if he had any message for the Biden administration he said he wanted to tell the president to “reconsider his course on the American oil and gas industry.”

The Keystone XL pipeline was a massive project that was expected to generate $3.4 billion in U.S. GDP growth, including millions in state and local tax revenue, according to the U.S. Chamber Global Energy Institute. The pipeline would have generated millions of dollars of economic opportunity for South Dakotans.

Laurie estimates there were at least 100 workers at each pump station when counting all the different kinds of trades involved. Anyone who had rental homes along the route, or who owned hotels were “pretty much full” due to the influx of workers.

It is sad that a President can do this much damage with an executive order. This much power concentrated in one place makes every business in America subject to the whims of the President. What if the President decided to declare in an executive order that ice cream promotes obesity and that all ice cream manufacturing and ice cream parlors have to be shut down immediately? How is that different from shutting down the Keystone XL Pipeline? It’s time for the unions whose members lost their jobs because of this executive order to get their lawyers together and start giving people their jobs back.

Welcome To The New American Economy

Posted on by

Breitbart is reporting the following today:

New weekly jobless claims unexpectedly rose by 13,000 to 861,000 in the week that ended February 13, the Department of Labor said Thursday.

Economists had expected claims to fall to 768,00 from the 793,000 initially reported for the prior week. The previous week’s figure was revised up by 55,000 to 848,000.

…Jobless claims—which are a proxy for layoffs—remain at extremely high levels. Prior to the pandemic, the highest level of claims was 695,000 hit in October of 1982. In March of 2009, at the depths of the financial crisis recession, jobless claims peaked at 665,000.

Even when the economy is creating a lot of demand for workers, many businesses will shed employees as they adjust to market conditions. But in a high-pressure labor market, those employees quickly find jobs and many never show up on the employment rolls. What appears to be happening now is that many workers who lose their jobs cannot quickly find replacement work and are forced to apply for benefits.

How many workers in the energy sector have lost their jobs because of the Executive Orders signed by President Biden? How many workers in areas that support energy sector jobs have lost their jobs since January 20th? These high unemployment numbers may be partially a result of the coronavirus, but they are more than likely related to the Executive Orders and the economic policies of the Biden administration. Unfortunately we can expect more high unemployment unless the Biden administration changes its policies.

Hurting Americans To Get Back At President Trump

Posted on by

Red State reported yesterday that President Biden has ordered the Heath and Human Services Department (HHS) to freeze executive orders from Trump designed to significantly lower prescription drug prices for Americans, including the potentially-life-saving drugs, insulin, and epinephrine.

The article reports:

As a result, as reported by Bloomberg Law, HHS subsequently froze the former Trump administration’s December drug policy that requires community health centers to pass on all of their insulin, and epinephrine — which includes the popular EpiPen used by millions of allergy sufferers — discount savings to patients.

…Under the now-frozen Trump administration policy, “centers that don’t pass on the savings wouldn’t qualify for federal grants,” said Bloomberg.

The article includes the following:

Click here for a list of the drugs and devices that are affected by Biden’s ordered freeze.

The article notes that so far (in less than a week) President Biden has destroyed 60,000 jobs, destroyed women’s sports, destroyed the U.S. gas and oil industry (ending America’s energy independence), forced troops to sleep in parking garages, and is preparing to ramp up wars in the Middle East.

This does not look good for the future.

When Your Priorities Are Unconstitutional

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about some of the things Joe Biden would prioritize should he take office in January. It is no surprise to find gun control high up on that list.

The article reports:

Joe Biden plans to move quickly against guns, adding the issue to his list of first executive orders, according to his top policy aide.

Stef Feldman, the national policy director of Biden’s presidential campaign, included the Democrat’s gun plan in a list of initial executive actions set to be unleashed after Inauguration Day.

Speaking in a Zoom briefing hosted by Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service, she said that Biden is planning to “make big, bold changes through executive action, not just on policing and climate like we talked about previously, but in healthcare and education on gun violence, on a range of issues.”

She added that “there’s really a lot you can do through guidance and executive action.”

It’s a pretty safe bet that if he does take executive action against guns, a case objecting to the order will find its way to the Supreme Court. This may be one of many reasons the Democrats plan to pack the court with more liberal justices.

The article concludes:

During the campaign, Biden won the endorsement of former candidate Beto O’Rourke, who famously promised to grab everyone’s AR-15.

While he calls his plan one aimed at ending “gun violence,” most of Biden’s ideas amount to limiting what people can buy or have. For example, he wants to end the sale of AR-15-style firearms (the most popular in the nation), regulate those that people already have, and limit the size of magazines those guns use.

Just for the record, the AR-15 is the most popular gun in the nation, but it does not have a history of being the weapon most used to commit a crime. So why are the Democrats so focused on the AR-15? Well, it’s scary looking. If you don’t know anything about guns, it is really scary looking. The fact that it’s scary looking means that it can be used to get the camel’s nose under the tent and begin to take away the gun rights of Americans. If you are familiar with world history, taking guns away from law-abiding citizens never ends well. A Biden administration would not bring freedom and prosperity to America. His ideas on gun control are only one illustration of that.

I Am Hoping This Will Never Happen

Posted on by

Yesterday The Blaze posted an article about former Vice-President Joe Biden’s plans for executive orders should he become President.

The article reports:

Former Vice President Joe Biden plans to roll out at least four executive orders should he ultimately be sworn in as president on Jan. 20, undoing the work of President Donald Trump, his campaign said this week.

A spokesperson for the Biden campaign on Monday told Fox News that the former vice president plans to rejoin both the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization and also plans to reinstate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — or DACA — and repeal the president’s so-called travel ban on certain Muslim countries.

Biden has also previously vowed to repeal Trump’s tax cuts and reverse the Mexico City Policy, which bans foreign aid from going to nongovernmental organizations that promote or pay for abortions.

“Other abortion-related policies and those weakening the Affordable Care Act will likely be on the chopping block in a Biden-Harris administration as well,” the outlet noted.

All of these policies will not help America move forward. Repealing the tax cuts will slow economic growth, ending the travel ban will make Americans less safe, and rejoining the Paris climate agreement will cripple the American economy while not impacting economic rival China. Just for the record, America has cut its carbon emissions despite not being part of the agreement; China continues to build coal-generated electric plants, increasing its carbon emissions. It is also unfortunate that the Democrats are so beholden to their Planned Parenthood donors that they find it necessary to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions overseas.

A Biden administration will be a continuation of the anemic growth we experienced in the Obama administration.

Getting The Job Done–Even When You Have To Do It Alone

Posted on by

One America News reported yesterday that President Trump has signed four executive orders designed to alleviate some of the economic disruption caused by the coronavirus.

The article reports:

On Saturday, he signed a payroll tax initiative, which will defer payroll tax to those making less than $100,000 a year until the end of 2020.

…The president has renewed supplemental unemployment benefits at $400 a week. This new amount came in just below the previous $600 extra, which Americans were receiving before the enhance benefits expired earlier this month.

…He also provided assistance to renters by imposing a partial moratorium on evictions and suspended mandatory student loan payments through the end of the year.

…The president has expressed he had to step in because Democrats in Congress have not stepped up to the plate.

“Democrats have refused these offers,” said President Trump. “What they really want is bailout money for states that are run by Democrat governors and mayors, which have been run very badly for many, many years.”

This is a stroke of genius. The bill that the House of Representatives put forth included a lot of things that have nothing to do with the coronavirus, and they refused to negotiate on anything less. We don’t need national mail-in voting–we stand in line at the grocery store, at Home Depot, and at WalMart almost every day. We don’t need to bail out badly-run states–they need to clean up their own budgets first (and Washington also needs to do some serious spending reduction).

The Democrats are unhappy. They might take this to court, but if they do, they will be fighting a President who signed an executive order to help Americans while Congress could not come to agreement on doing anything. Even if they won in court, they would lose in the court of public opinion, and the election is less than three months away.

This was a brilliant move on the part of the President.

Good News–Temporary Good News, But Good News

Posted on by

Breitbart is reporting today that a White House study released on Friday found that President Donald Trump’s Obamacare reforms will save Americans roughly $450 billion over the next ten years.

That is wonderful news, but it is only temporary wonderful news.

The article reports:

A White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) study released on Friday found that Americans will save $450 billion through Trump’s Obamacare reforms. The CEA suggested that Trump’s repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate and the expansion of short-term insurance plans and Association Health Plans (AHPs) will save Americans billions over the next ten years.

The White House also suggested that the benefits of Trump’s deregulatory actions saved Americans billions, increased access to more health insurance options, and did not amount to a “sabotage” of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Unfortunately these savings are a result of Executive Orders, not legislative action. That means that the changes can theoretically be reversed by a future President. It would have been wonderful if Congress had stepped up to the plate and made the necessary changes.

The article concludes:

Many Americans have contended that because 80 percent of those who paid the Obamacare mandate made less than $50,000 a year, the individual mandate repeal serves as a significant middle-class tax break.

The CEA said about 87 percent of Obamacare exchange enrollees receive ACA subsidies and “only pay a fraction of their health insurance costs.”

Many Obamacare proponents suggested that the repeal of the individual mandate, as well as the expansion of short-term plans and AHPs, would lead to higher premiums on the Obamacare exchanges.

In contrast, the CEA contended that because more people will use AHPs and short-term plans and fewer people will use the ACA exchanges, the government will save $185 billion over the next ten years.

The CEA said that instead of sabotaging the ACA, the Trump administration offered millions of Americans more affordable health insurance options.

“The oft-expressed view that deregulation ‘sabotages the ACA’ by giving consumers more insurance-coverage options is misguided,” the CEA said.

The free market is always the best answer.

Bringing Efficiency Into Federal Employment

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Times posted an article about President Trump’s recent executive orders to change civil service regulations.

The article reports:

“These executive orders will make it easier for agencies to remove poor-performing employees and make sure taxpayer dollars are more efficiently used,” Mr. Bremberg said.

The move will promote efficiency, save taxpayer dollars and create better work environments for “thousands of employees who come to work each day and do a great job,” said another official.

as expected, unions objected loudly. The article reports some of the reasons for the reforms:

Office of Personnel Management data shows federal employees are 44 times less likely to be fired than a private sector worker once they’ve completed a probationary period.

A recent Government Accountability Office report showed that it takes between six months and a year to remove a federal employee for poor performance, followed by an eight-month appeals process.

The National Affairs blog posted the following this spring:

Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: “Meticulous attention,” the president insisted in 1937, “should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government….The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.” The reason? F.D.R. believed that “[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.” Roosevelt was hardly alone in holding these views, even among the champions of organized labor. Indeed, the first president of the AFL-CIO, George Meany, believed it was “impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”

Many of our current civil service policies are the result of the unionization of government workers. It is time for that practice to end. Government workers are paid very well and should be subject to the same rules as the rest of the workforce. Unions should not be able to collective bargain with people whose political campaigns they help finance.

Can The Second Amendment Be Overturned By Executive Action?

Posted on by

ABC News is reporting today on President Obama’s plan to use an executive order to begin to limit gun rights among Americans.

The article reports:

President Obama plans to announce executive actions he will take on gun control on Tuesday, a source told ABC News.

Obama had announced during his weekly address Friday that he planned to discuss gun control options with Attorney General Loretta Lynch after he returned from his Hawaiian vacation, which ended today.

“A few months ago, I directed my team at the White House to look into any new actions I can take to help reduce gun violence,” he said in the address. “And on Monday, I’ll meet with our Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, to discuss our options.”

The White House had previously announced the Justice Department was examining unilateral action the president could take on gun control, and would be making recommendation.

Gun sales during the Obama Administration have skyrocketed. Gun sales in America have increased since the San Bernardino shootings.

The thing we need to remember here is that a lack of guns by law-abiding Americans does not make us safer. The move for better background checks is the beginning of the effort to register guns. Historically that has been the move that preceded gun confiscation. Note also that most of the shootings involving multiple victims have occurred in ‘gun free’ zones. The shooters knew that the people they attacked would not be armed and they would not meet immediate resistance.

Keep in mind as you hear this debate that there is a Second Amendment that upholds the right of private citizens to own guns. Law-abiding citizens owning guns makes us safer–it does not put us in danger. Hopefully Congress will stand up for the U.S. Constitution in this debate.

One Answer To Federal Government Overreach

Posted on by

According to the IJReview, the Arizona House of Representatives passed a bill last Wednesday that had only two provisions.

The article lists the provisions:

  1. Prohibits this state or any of its political subdivisions from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with a policy directive issued by the U.S. DOJ to law enforcement agencies in this state that has not been affirmed by a vote of Congress and signed into law as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.
  2. Prohibits this state or any of its political subdivisions from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with an executive order issued by the President of the U.S. that has not been affirmed by a vote of Congress and signed into law as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.

Simply stated, unless Congress passes the law, Arizona is not going to follow it. That is the way our government is supposed to work. Thank you, Arizona.