Radio America Online News Bureau

ban

House GOP Tries to Force Vote on Infanticide Ban

by

Listen to “House GOP Tries to Force Vote on Infanticide Ban” on Spreaker.

House Republicans are now trying to force a vote on legislation requiring medical care for babies who are born following attempted abortions, after Democrats rejected numerous GOP efforts to get a vote on the infanticide ban.

On Tuesday, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise brought a discharge petition to the House floor so members could sign it.  If a majority of House members sign on, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be required to call for a vote.

“Let the members vote to end, frankly, infanticide in America,” said Americans United for Life Chief Legal Officer Steven Aden, who was in the chamber for the signings and at a press conference later in the day.

So far the discharge petition has 190 signatures, meaning Republicans are at least a couple dozen signatures short of a majority.  But the petition stays open for the remainder of the current Congress, which runs through the end of 2020.  Aden is not giving up and thinks more Democrats will join the effort if they feel the heat from their constituents.

“We’re hopeful, but they need to hear from the American people,” said Aden.

Democrats offer a series of objections to the legislation, the most common being that infanticide is already banned through the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which was passed in the early days of the George W. Bush administration.

Aden says that law is good but there’s a major problem with it.

“Unfortunately, that bill was a paper tiger.  It simply states that infants that are born alive after an abortion are persons and ought to receive medical attention but there’s no teeth to it,” said Aden.

Listen to the full podcast top hear Aden explain why he believes organizations like Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America are so ardently opposed to saving the lives of babies living outside their mothers.

Share

Virginia Gun Control Effort Misfires

by

Listen to “Virginia Gun Control Effort Misfires” on Spreaker.

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and his Democratic allies in the legislature are fuming after Republicans killed a gun control bill before it ever reached a final vote, and second amendment advocates say the contents of the bill would have instantly turned many law-abiding gun owners into criminals.

“I wish Ralph Northam had run on the issue of gun control.  I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t be the governor now if he had said, ‘Oh, incidentally, I’m going to take away all your guns,'” said Gun Owners of America Legislative Counsel Michael Hammond.

Among the initiatives pursued by Northam and other Democrats are a ban on “assault weapons,” a ban on any firearm that can hold a magazine containing more than ten rounds, and strengthening of so-called “red flag laws,” which allow a court to take away guns from someone deemed to be an imminent threat to themselves or others.

Hammond says Northam essentially wants to ban semi-automatic rifles, like the AR-15.  He says there are roughly 50 million semi-automatic rifles in the U.S. But he says that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

“He goes on with universal background checks, which sets the stage for a national gun registry and would outlaw private gun transactions between you and your neighbor.  And he goes on to these insidious gun confiscation orders, which he calls red flag laws,” said Hammond.

Hammond calls them insidious because judges can order gun confiscation based only on a complaint and no due process for the person accused of being a threat.  He says any attempt to take someone’s gun away should be treated like a criminal charge, meaning the accused should have full rights to paid counsel.

According to Hammond, the confiscation orders are carried out in the middle of the night and can often lead to deadly consequences when a groggy gun owner fears what’s on the other side of the door.

Listen to the full podcast to hear Hammond explain why most mass shooters – from Parkland to Newtown and many places – could have been arrested for felonies or had their firearms taken away on clear legal grounds.  He also explains why gun owners in many states need to brace for fierce efforts to limit their second amendment rights in the weeks and months ahead.

Share

Court Rejects Transgender Military Ban

by

A federal judge fully rejected the Trump administration’s proposed ban on transgender service in the military and also refused to delay the onset of transgender enlistment while the administration considers appealing the decision.

Back in October, federal judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly rejected much of the Trump administration policy on transgenders in the military.  On Monday, she ruled there was no compelling reason to for military to postpone enlistment of transgenders.

According to the Washington Post, Kollar-Kotelly said she “is not persuaded that defendants will be irreparably injured” by mandating that the Defense Department begin accepting applications on January 1.

“With only a brief hiatus, Defendants have had the opportunity to prepare for the accession of transgender individuals into the military for nearly one and a half years,” the judge added.

Family Research Council Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg says the judge’s decision is alarming on a number of fronts.

“I’m not terribly surprised given the obvious bias on the issue that she has shown.  She has simply shown herself determined to impose her will upon the executive branch and not show any respect for the constitutional prerogatives that the president and the Defense Department have for making decisions regarding military personnel policy,” said Sprigg.

While not an attorney, Sprigg says Kollar-Kotelly’s legal reasoning seems backwards when it comes to the burden of proof in this case.

“She apparently said that there’s no emergency for the government, that it’s not going to cause any irreparable harm to the military if they begin this process.

“The standard is supposed to be the question, ‘Is there irreparable harm to the plaintiffs?’  I think that it hasn’t been demonstrated that there will be irreparable harm, particularly with respect to this issue of new recruits,” said Sprigg.

Without the policy being implemented, Sprigg says no plaintiff could be suffering irreparable harm.

“Where is the irreparable harm if someone who has not joined the military perhaps has to delay for three more months?” asked Sprigg.

In a brief statement, the Justice Department disagreed with the decision and said it was considering which legal steps to take next.

Sprigg hopes the DOJ appeals soon.

“I hope that the Justice Department would appeal this to a higher court and that they would consider at least giving a delay in the implementation, particularly of this portion of the policy,” said Sprigg.

Sprigg says that without a delay until the legal dispute is resolved, Kollar-Kotelly could be the one inflicting damage to transgenders seeking to serve in the military.

“If they are allowed to join the military beginning on January 1 and then the ultimate disposition of the case is that in fact that they can be discharged, you could argue that they would be worse off than if they had never been permitted to join in the first place,” said Sprigg.

He insists the effort to prevent transgenders from joining the military is entirely a question of readiness.

“The reason for this policy is not because the president or the Defense Department just does not like transgender people.  It’s because they have a unique medical condition which make them ineligible for military service because they have limited deployability,” said Sprigg.

“To be fully deployable in military terms, you are supposed to be able to be sent anywhere in the world at any time without the need for specialized medical care.  People that are undergoing transgender hormone therapy or have undergone gender reassignment surgery inherently have a need for specialized medical care,” he added.

With the Army suggesting and then scrapping an effort to allow recruits with some history of mental illness to enlist, the military revealed that it is struggling to meet recruitment goals.  Sprigg says instead of pushing harder on a political agenda, recruiting numbers would probably improve.

“Perhaps if we moved away from these politically correct social engineering, then we would have an uptick in our overall recruiting picture,” said Sprigg.

Standard Podcast [ 8:08 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Russians Banned from Olympics, Bannon vs. Romney, Flake Backs Alabama Dem

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America enjoy watching the Russians get barred from competing in the 2018 Winter Olympics because of an ongoing doping scandal, and they also get a kick out of the International Olympic Committee suddenly caring about corruption.  They also shake their heads as Steve Bannon tries to discredit Mitt Romney’s denunciation of Roy Moore by saying Moore served in Vietnam and Romney avoided it by “hiding behind his religion.”  And they scold Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, who not only condemns Roy Moore but is contributing to liberal Democrat Doug Jones.

Share

Ex-INS Official Hails Court Ruling on Travel Ban

by

The law is very clear that the president has the power to exclude any person or group of people from entering the United States and the Supreme Court was right to rule in his favor, according to a former high-ranking Immigration and Naturalization Service official.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected appellate court decisions striking down President Trump’s executive order that calls for a 90-day travel ban from six nations with significant terrorism problems.  The justices lifted some of the injunctions against the executive order and agreed to hear oral arguments on other components later this year.

Temple University School of Law Professor Jan C. Ting served as assistant director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration.  He says the Supreme Court’s stark reversal from the lower court decisions is striking.

“The unanimity of the high court was surprising.  Even the liberal wing of the court concurred in the judgment that the positions of the lower courts in striking down the ban were overly broad,” said Ting.

He fully expects the court to rule in Trump’s favor on the outstanding issues as well given what Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a separate opinion that both concurred and dissented from the majority opinion.

“It seemed like the travel ban was very likely to be affirmed by the high court on the merits when the high court gets to that point, and I think that’s reflected in the unanimous decision of the high court to push back on the lower court injunctions,” said Ting.

Ting has weighed in at various points of the travel ban debate, pointing out that Trump’s first version was perfectly legal based on existing U.S. statute, specifically 8 USC 1182(f).

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate,” the statute reads in part.

Ting says that makes this fierce political battle an open and shut case.

“The law is very clear.  The president has the authority to exclude any alien from the United States for any reason and for any period of time the president chooses.  That is unmistakably clear,” said Ting, noting the ruling is a rebuke to lower courts straining for reasons to block the order.

“The role of the courts is and ought to be very limited.  These are political questions, whether people should be excluded from the United States.  The political branches of government, the Congress and president together, should be making these decisions,” said Ting.

Critics often call the executive order a Muslim ban and cite first amendment concern.  Ting says that argument simply doesn’t hold up.

“I think it’s pretty clear that there’s not a religious issue there.  I mean anyone who reads the first amendment can see that we’re not establishing a religion in a travel ban,” said Ting.

Furthermore, he asserts that non-citizens in other countries don’t have constitutional rights.

“The notion that people who are outside the United States who are not citizens have some rights that they can assert under our Constitution is, I think, an erroneous claim.  Those issues will all be decided when the high court rules on the merits,” said Ting.

“It would be startling if people outside the United States had some constitutional right either to come to the United States or, frankly, whether they could assert any constitutional rights while as non-citizens outside the United States,” said Ting.

“We think the United States is an exceptional country, but our Constitution is not so great that it governs people all over the world who are not citizens,” he added.

In it’s decision, the Supreme Court allows people to travel to the U.S. from the six nations listed in the executive order only if there is a clear connection for them in this country, ranging from a new job to admission to a college or university or if they have close family in the U.S.

Alternatively, the ban remains firmly in place for those without such connections.

Ting finds the distinction unhelpful.

“I’m with the three dissenters (Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito), who say this is going to give rise to a lot of unnecessary litigation before we get to the merits.  It’s really not necessary.  Since it’s going to be overturned anyway, why don’t we just restore it in the interim?” said Ting.

He says the answer to that can probably be found in in the man who leads the high court.

“I think we see the hand of Chief Justice Roberts here.  He’s trying to preserve the dignity of the court and he would like to have unanimous opinions,” said Ting.  “He negotiated this compromise just to get everyone on board so the Supreme Court could speak with one voice, heightening the respect of the high court and its decisions.”

 

Standard Podcast [ 10:34 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

‘He Hasn’t Been Keeping Up With the News’

by

Former President George W. Bush indicated he considers President Trump’s recent executive order a “Muslim ban” and opposes efforts to infringe upon anyone’s freedom to worship, an analysis that one immigration experts suggests is evidence Bush doesn’t know what is in the policy and is continuing with his narrative that anyone killing in the name of Islam cannot be a Muslim.

Bush appeared on NBC’s ‘Today’ show to promote his new book, “Portraits of Courage,” but soon found himself immersed in a conversation about the president, the press  and Trump’s temporary pause on immigration from seven nations suffering from the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism.

‘Today’ host Matt Lauer began the discussion of the executive order by quoting Bush’s positive portrayal of Islam following the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

“That’s very different talk than what we’re hearing today about a Muslim ban,” said Lauer.  “Do you think the president’s position on this has been well thought out?”

“It’s important for all of us to recognize one of our great strengths is for people to worship the way they want to or not worship at all.  A bedrock of our freedom is the right to worship freely,” Bush responded.

Bush later said he supported an “immigration policy that is welcoming and upholds the law.”

Center for Immigration Reform Executive Director Mark Krikorian says Bush’s focus on the freedom to worship suggests he’s not all that familiar with Trump’s executive order.

“He still misunderstands what the struggle is and specifically about the travel ban he didn’t push back against Lauer’s comment that this was a Muslim ban.  How can it be a Muslim ban if it only covers 10 or 12 percent of the world’s Muslims.  He hasn’t been keeping up with the news and he really shouldn’t be commenting on it if he hasn’t,” said Krikorian.

But Bush wasn’t done.

“I understood right off the bat, Matt, that this was an ideological conflict and people who murder the innocent are not religious people.  They want to advance an ideology,” said Bush.

Krikorian says Bush sees the threat in much the same way former President Barack Obama does.

“Even President Obama made these points about how if you’re a terrorist killing innocent people, you’re not religious.  Well, that’s completely misunderstanding what it means.  Who are we to say that a terrorist acting in the name of Islam doesn’t understand what Islam is?” asked Krikorian.

“Former President Bush would have been correct in saying that sort of violent perspective on Islam is not the only way to see it, that there are many Muslims who reject it.  But he steps over the line, and Obama did this too, when he said that other perspectives of Islam that see it legitimately as killing infidels are not really Islam,” said Krikorian.

Krikorian is also keeping a close eye out for Trump’s revised executive order banning travel from the seven nations with significant terrorism problems.  He expects the new order to carve out exceptions for anyone holding green cards.

He says the massive fight over the order is largely a distraction from the real fight over which branch of government gets to establish immigration policy.

“It’s only 90 days for seven countries.  What this is really about is whether the elected representatives of the people or the judges get to decide who moves to the United States,” said Krikorian, who says the statutory power clearly gives authority to Congress, which allows the president to ban any alien or class of alien he wants.

He says the left wants that power to be in the hands of judges.

“This is something that the anti-borders people, whether on the right or on the left, have been pushing for for years, where every single visa decision – everything – would be decided by judges ultimately.  That’s not what the law says,” said Krikorian.

“The courts suspending that old executive order were acting lawlessly.  It was literally an illegal act by those judges,” said Krikorian.

Standard Podcast [ 11:23 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

‘This is Not A Permanent Ban’

by

President Trump’s executive order is not a permanent ban but is necessary for national security thanks to the lax vetting practices applied by the Obama administration, according to a leading immigration policy experts.

Trump has issued a flurry of orders, but his executive order last week ordering an immediate and indefinite pause on travel to the United States from seven terrorism-prone nations is drawing by far the fiercest response.  Protesters have clogged airports and political critics are demanding Trump rescind the order.

Jessica Vaughan is director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.  She says there is a lot of confusion and misinformation about what Trump’s order does.

“I think the most misunderstood part is that people are being permanently prevented from coming to the United States who had been approved before,” said Vaughan.  “This is not a permanent ban.  It’s a temporary suspension.  You can call it a ban if you want, but it’s a temporary ban.  No one has been told that the benefit they were approved for  has been taken away.”

And she says refugees in dire situations are still being processed from those countries even with the pause in place.

“I have to emphasize there is language in this executive order that anybody with a particularly emergency situation, compelling circumstances, in imminent danger, or in other categories can ask for a waiver.  From what I’ve heard in statements today, they’ve already granted more than a thousand waivers for people,” said Vaughan.

But she says the pause on entry from the seven unstable nations is needed to recalibrate how the U.S. screens people entering our country.

“The point was to give our government the opportunity to take another look at these people who have been granted green cards, visas, refugee status.  We know that the vetting process under the Obama administration was not adequate,” said Vaughan.

Vaughan, a former visa officer, says the Obama administration failed to do even basic screening much of the time, including waiving required interviews with those seeking to go to the U.S.  But she said the problems didn’t end there.

“In other cases, officers were not allowed to look very deeply into the applications that they got.  The claims they made on their applications were not always verified.  Officers were told to assume that they were qualified and not ask too many questions.  [There was] not a lot of fraud prevention work taking place,” said Vaughan.

Then there is the problem of trying to vet people coming from hostile countries or ones that don’t have decent records on their people.

“In some of these countries, we don’t have enough of a relationship with the government to be able to be sure that people’s identities are who they say they are or that their story checks out,” said Vaughan.

“There was a lot of enforcement that was undone by the Obama administration.  We’ve seen illegal immigration rise to levels we have not seen in many years,” said Vautghan.

Vaughan says she has sympathy for those caught in transit as the order took effect, but she says national security has to take precedence.

“It is important to recognize that our security has been put at risk every single day that we have not had adequate vetting in place.  So it was important to put a stop to that as soon as possible,” said Vaughan.

Vaughan likens the pace of Trump’s immigration actions thus far – ranging from this order to ordering border wall construction to cracking down on sanctuary cities – to “drinking from a fire hose,” but she believes Trump is on the right course.

“There’s a lot that needed to happen,” she said.  “It’s been presented as an integrated plan.  Throwaway lines like, ‘Let’s have more border security.’  They’re talking about a wall but changing the policies also and enforcing the laws in the interior.  That’s a comprehensive approach that’s likely to work.”

Standard Podcast [ 8:44 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share