On Wednesday, the Supreme Court decided it would consider two cases involving religious schools’ right to control which teacher it chooses to teach its religion classes.
In both cases, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James Catholic School v. Biel, the schools involved are Catholic schools and are being defended by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against both schools, prompting Becket to appeal to the Supreme Court.
In Biel, a former teacher said she was fired after she told the school she would have to take time off for surgery and chemotherapy for her breast cancer, according to EdWeek, which added that the principal informed her that she was not being renewed because she was not strict enough with her class. When Biel sued, the school asked for summary judgment based on the ministerial exception recognized by the court in Hosanna-Tabor.
In Morrissey-Berru, the teacher’s contract was not renewed because the school said she could not keep order in the classroom. The teacher sued, claiming age bias.
Becket Law wrote, “In Hosanna-Tabor, a similar Becket case in 2012, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the ‘ministerial exception’ for a church school, a First Amendment right that allows religious schools to choose their own religion teachers. The ministerial exception protects all religious groups’ freedom to choose ‘ministerial’ employees without interference from bureaucrats or courts.”
Other religious groups joined the Catholic schools in fighting for the right to choose their own religious teachers; in a brief filed by the Church of God in Christ and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the petitioners write,
The Court should step in now to resolve this split of authority that subjects religious groups to different rules depending on the accident of geography. The Ninth Circuit’s elevation of formalities such as title over substantive duties invites judges to make inappropriate determinations about the affairs of religious organizations and leads to arbitrary and discriminatory results … The Ninth Circuit’s subordination of religious function to other, often more superficial considerations upends the historical and constitutional tradition embodied in Hosanna-Taborand swings open the door to judicial meddling with religious doctrine. To further minimize the risk of judicial interference in internal religious affairs, courts should defer to religious institutions’ good-faith understanding that duties are religiously important rather than crediting plaintiffs’ characterizations.
Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, summed up, “Do we really want judges, juries, or bureaucrats deciding who ought to teach Catholicism at a parish school, or Judaism at a Jewish day school? Of course not. Religion teachers play a vital role in the ecosystem of faith. We are confident that the Supreme Court will recognize that under our Constitution government officials cannot control who teaches kids what to believe.”
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” – James Madison, The Federalist No. 62
In the year 2019, nine years after the constitutionalist and populist Tea Party wave midterm election of 2010, how many Republicans in Congress actually agree with James Madison?
While all the eyes of political media this week remain fixated upon the dueling melodramas of expected House impeachment later today and the next Democratic Party presidential primary debate tomorrow evening, Congress is gearing up to pass yet another year-end budget betrayal. To be sure, we already knew that fiscal conservatism was dead and that Republicans themselves killed it. But it seems that Republicans’ insatiable desire for fiscal profligacy will not be quenched until they can also spit upon fiscal conservatism’s proverbial corpse.
Daniel Horowitz of Blaze Media has a devastating breakdown of the nature of the latest boondoggle — a boondoggle rearing its ugly head, lest we forget, less than two years after President Donald Trump himself vowed to “never sign a bill like this again.” Over 2,400 pages of legislation. Nearly one and a half trillion dollars of additional spending. Increased funding for the EPA, but no increased funding for ICE. MS-13 trafficking and amnesty loopholes galore. More backdoor amnesty for Liberian nationals. Incentivizing illegal aliens to attempt to enter the federal workforce. Re-authorization of the corporate welfare- and crony capitalism-abetting Export-Import Bank. Raising the national tobacco purchasing age to 21. Tens of millions of dollars toward “gun violence research.” Zero attention paid to the neo-Confederate nationwide plague of sanctuary city lawlessness. Zero attention paid to the fact that murderous transnational criminal cartels still effectively control large swaths of our southern border. Zero attention paid to our nationwide crisis of revanchist and power-hungry judicial supremacism.
And so forth. It’s enough to make one wonder why we elect Republicans into office, in the first instance. Is there anyone on the Republican side of the aisle who still cares about the forgotten American?
Over the past few years, there has been an ongoing and roiling dialogue over the intellectual meaning and political future of American conservatism. It is undoubtedly an important and healthy discussion for us conservatives to air out among ourselves. My own take is that there will be no going back to the pre-Trump “dead consensus,” with the only open question being the proper pathforward.
But as every card-carrying conservative knows, “Republican” and “conservative” are hardly synonymous terms. And while the debate over what it means to be a conservative rages on, it is an entirely distinct question to ask what exactly it is that contemporary elected Republicans claim to actually stand for. After all, it certainly does not seem to be fiscal restraint. It certainly does not seem to be cultural traditionalism. It certainly does not seem to be national sovereignty.
Instead, the least common denominator that unifies seemingly all elected Republicans, in the year 2019, seems to be a shared hatred of the Left — or “triggering the libs,” as my colleague Michael Knowles aptly phrased it yesterday. Indeed, there is actually some historical precedent for this: The sole unifying factor among all three “legs” of the traditional post-William F. Buckley Jr./Reagan-era conservative “stool” — fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, and national security hawkishness — was opposition to the existential threat of Soviet-era communism.
The modern, post-Kavanagh fiasco Left is indeed a vicious and malicious political foe. The Left’s reckless radicalization and trend toward full-on totalitarian socialism is one of the three factors that fortifies my confidence in voting for Donald Trump next November. But surely it is not too much to ask Republicans to actually stand for something beyond mere hatred of the dreaded enemy.
Climate Protesters Try To Stop Coal Train, Learn Important Lesson About Momentum
Leadinglights / Getty ImagesA stock image of a coal train on the rails. (Leadinglights / Getty Images)
A group of climate protesters got a lesson in basic physics during an attempt to stop a moving freight train loaded down with coal.
The incident occurred after activists attempted to stop the cargo in Massachusetts late Monday night. It doesn’t appear anyone was hurt, despite the potentially deadly nature of the stunt.
According to WBUR, the protesters jumped away from the tracks when the train was a mere 50 feet away.
“A train carrying coal to NH nearly ran over a dozen climate activists who tried to block it in Worcester,” WBUR’s Miriam Wasser tweeted. “This happened after someone farther south on the tracks called the emergency hotline twice to report there were people on the tracks.”
#BREAKING A train carrying coal to NH nearly ran over a dozen climate activists who tried to block it in Worcester. This happened after someone farther south on the tracks called the emergency hotline twice to report there were people on the tracks. pic.twitter.com/uaUa12mauQ
The protesters belong to groups that have made a habit of blockading coal shipments in New England, including Climate Disobedience Center and 350 New Hampshire Action.
According to 350 New Hampshire, the train crew knew protesters were on the tracks and simply refused to stop.
Of course, anyone who knows the first thing about trains can tell you that these industrial behemoths can’t stop on a dime. Depending on the cargo weight and speed of the train, it can take miles for one of these massive machines to come to a complete halt.
Until the train stops, there’s not much that can slow it down.
With a full load, trains can weigh millions of pounds.
At speed, the momentum of these machines means that they can even shred tractor-trailer rigs like tissue paper. If that sounds impossible, just watch the video clip below.
WARNING: The following video contains profane language that some viewers may find offensive. Viewer discretion is advised.
OK, Firefighter Smokey here again with a lesson. My Father drove trains for Santa Fe for several years before the merger with BN, when he left them in a buyout. He’s told me about hitting cows, sofas, even cars, and drilled into my head, DO NOT try to beat a train! pic.twitter.com/k0LEk31UDT
If a train is able to tear an 18-wheeler apart like that, protesters don’t stand much of a chance.
Despite the danger in their particular type of climate activism, these protesters succeeded in stalling a train earlier this month. A post from the Climate Disobedience Center celebrated that blockage.
— Climate Disobedience Center (@ClimateDisobey) December 8, 2019
What this post failed to mention is the time the train spent idling because of the protesters. Running engines still consume fuel, and the extra fuel needed to get a train up to speed once the protesters were removed surely added to the trip’s total carbon footprint.
Perhaps most hypocritical is the technology these climate activists use to spread their message.
Unless these protesters are running their electronics off a solar charger, there’s a good chance that the trains being stopped are delivering coal that will go to power the very devices used to further their cause.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
As Lanell McGee James and her husband, Lamar, were driving to Dallas following the death of Lamar’s brother, they were pulled over by a Texas state trooper.
What happened next brought tears to their eyes and is now encouraging thousands of people across social media.
James and her husband were travelling from their home north of Houston on Sunday when Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Ross Bates pulled them over near Madisonville for a non-speeding violation, according to her Facebook post.
Bates asked the couple where they travelling to, and James responded that they were driving to Dallas due to a “death in the family.”
When James told Bates that her husband’s brother had died, the trooper didn’t skip a beat.
“[Bates] said oh I’m sorry to hear that, do you know where he is?” James wrote on the now-viral post.
“My husband answered ‘yes at the morgue’ and the office responded ‘no he is now in his heavenly home.’”
The divinely timed answer brought tears to the grieving couple’s eyes.
“At this point my husband and I are both moved to tears because his brothers death was very unexpected,” James wrote.
James said the trooper then went back to his vehicle, wrote a warning instead of a ticket and gave it to the couple.
The warning wasn’t the only blessing the officer gave, however.
Bates, who had recently been ordained as a Christian deacon, asked James and her husband if he could pray over them.
“He removed his hat asked to hold our hands and he prayed with us,” she wrote. “I have NEVER had this happen before but it was everything that we needed in that moment.”
“There’s just so much in the news with the negativity and the police killings and the racial tension — it’s a lot,” she told KHOU.
Bates said in a statement to the outlet that he was humbled by James’ “kind words.”
“While I was on patrol on Sunday, I met a family in need,” he said.
“They were mourning the unexpected loss of a loved one, and I am humbled that my actions had a positive impact on their lives during this difficult time.
“As a State Trooper, I’ve met many people who have shared their stories with me. Often, I don’t hear about the impact I’ve had on them. I am truly humbled by the kind words of Mrs. James, and I will always be grateful that our brief interaction had a positive impact on their family.”
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Once the Democrats took control of Virginia’s state legislature in November’s elections, it was only a matter of time before industrial-strength gun control legislation got passed. The new legislature isn’t seated until Jan. 6, but everybody had a good idea what the legislation would entail: a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” red-flag provisions that would allow guns to be taken without any due process and universal background checks.
A number of counties had begun declaring themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries,” meaning law enforcement there wouldn’t act on any state laws they believed abrogated the Second Amendment. Virginia Democrats, including governor and blackface aficionado Ralph Northam, have threatened pretty dire consequences if the counties didn’t fall into line, with one suggesting the National Guard would be called out.
That is tough talk. The problem with tough talk is that it won’t accomplish a tough task: Fully 79 percent of Virginia’s counties have become, with all due rapidity, Second Amendment sanctuaries, according to the Washington Free Beacon.
Out of Virginia’s 95 counties, 75 have voted to become Second Amendment sanctuaries, a whopping 79 percent. Another 18 legally independent cities have also adopted the designation.
On Thursday alone, eight locales joined the sanctuary club.
Last Tuesday, Northam threatened Second Amendment sanctuaries with potential “consequences” if they didn’t enforce whatever laws get passed when the legislature convenes.
“There’s not going to be retaliation. That’s not what I’m about. I’m about making Virginia safer,” Northam said, according to WTKR.
“If we have constitutional laws on the books and law enforcement officers are not enforcing those laws on the books, then there are going to be consequences, but I’ll cross that bridge if and when we get to it.”
So no consequences but consequences. Gotcha. Northam has also gone with a carrot-and-stick approach, promising a grandfather clause to banned firearms as a carrot.
Do you think the National Guard will be called out in Virginia to confiscate guns?
0% (0 Votes)
0% (0 Votes)
In terms of consequences, it may be the Democrats who end up facing them. For instance, take Fauquier County in the northeast part of the state. This was the line to get into the Second Amendment sanctuary hearing on Thursday:
The Free Beacon described “several thousand people adorned with ‘Guns Save Lives’ stickers” outside the meeting in the town of Warrenton.
“Any erosion of our constitutional rights is just the beginning,” Gary Gray, who showed up with a sticker that said “The British are Coming,” said.
“This is just the tip of the iceberg on what they ultimately want, which is complete gun confiscation across the whole United States. These United States were founded with firearms. All the other rights we have are only guaranteed because of this right.”
Meanwhile, Gary’s 18-year-old daughter Kaitlyn — who was wearing a “Shall Not Be Infringed” sticker — said “[i]t’s scary that this is happening.”
“I don’t think anyone should have the right to infringe on our Constitution,” she said. “We shouldn’t even have to discuss a grandfather clause. I don’t think that should be even on the table. I don’t think we should have to worry about anyone taking our guns away at all.”
At least in this situation, they probably won’t be. The Democrats have already backed away from their most radical proposal, which would have involved banning the possession of guns like the AR-15. You also don’t hear statements like those made by Democratic Virginia Rep. Donald McEachin last week.
You may remember McEachin, who said that Second Amendment sanctuaries “certainly risk funding because if the sheriff’s department is not going to enforce the law, they’re going to lose money. The counties’ attorney’s offices are not going to have the money to prosecute because their prosecutions are going to go down.
“And ultimately, I’m not the governor, but the governor may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the law,” McEachin added. “That’s his call, because I don’t know how serious these counties are and how severe the violations of law will be. But that’s obviously an option he has.”
“We have received multiple questions regarding proposed legislation for the 2020 General Assembly session and the authority of the Governor of Virginia to employ the Virginia National Guard in a law enforcement role. We understand and respect the passion people feel for the U.S. Constitution and 2nd Amendment rights,” a statement from Maj. Gen. Timothy P. Williams, the adjutant general of Virginia, read.
We understand and respect the passion people feel for the U.S. Constitution and 2nd Amendment rights. We will not speculate about the possible use of the Virginia National Guard.
“I encourage everyone to be patient while we allow our elected officials to work through the legislative process. We have not received any requests from the Governor, or anyone on his staff, about serving in a law enforcement role related to any proposed legislation.”
I encourage everyone to be patient while we allow our elected officials to work through the legislative process. We have not received any requests from the Governor, or anyone on his staff, about serving in a law enforcement role related to any proposed legislation.
Nor will they, I imagine. Virginia may be trending blueish, but it’s still a torn state. There are heavily concentrated pockets of blue and wide swaths of red. When those in the pockets try to attenuate the rights of those in the swaths, there’s a tendency for things to work out this way.
If the new Democrat majority in Virginia is going to pass stringent gun control, what it is facing is, at best, a logistical and public relations nightmare. Twenty percent of the state isn’t going to disarm 80 percent of the state, and it’s going to be difficult for a governor terminally poxed by scandals involving blackface and abortion to mete out “consequences” in any serious form.
Meanwhile, if this is the delicacy with which Virginia Democrats plan on handling the rest of their agenda, good luck with holding onto that majority.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Is it too much to ask for an ounce of chill in this process?
Just an ounce. In reaching for something to prove your Trumpist loyalty, there are a million ways you could fill out the mad lib “Trump’s impeachment is less just than _______________” without proceeding directly to “the execution]]>
This week, the Supreme Court effectively mandated continued legal tolerance for homelessness across major cities on the West Coast of the United States.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that Americans have a right to sleep on the streets, and that it amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Constitution to levy fines based on such behavior.
That court—a repository of stupidity and radicalism, the Mos Eisley of our nation’s federal bench—decided that writing a $25 ticket to people “camping” on the sidewalk is precisely the sort of brutality the Founding Fathers sought to prohibit in stopping torture under the Eighth Amendment.
That ruling was so patently insane that even liberal politicians such as Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas joined the appeal attempt. “Letting the current law stand handicaps cities and counties from acting nimbly to aid those perishing on the streets, exacerbating unsafe and unhealthy conditions that negatively affect our most vulnerable residents,” he explained.
But the 9th Circuit ruling will stand. That ruling followed a separate 2006 ruling from the same court, which found that cities could not ban people from sleeping in public places. In this case, Judge Marsha Berzon, in language so twisted it would make yoga pioneer Bikram Choudhury jealous, wrote that “the state may not criminalize the state of being ‘homeless in public places’” and thus could not criminalize the “consequence” of being homeless.
It is worth noting that being homeless is not a “state” of being. It is not an immutable characteristic. It is an activity and can certainly be regulated.
That doesn’t mean the best solution is prosecution of those living on the street—a huge swath of homeless people are mentally ill or addicted to drugs and would benefit from better laws concerning involuntary commitment or mandatory drug rehabilitation. But to suggest that cities cannot do anything to effectively police those sleeping on the streets is to damn those cities to the spread of disease, the degradation of public spaces, and an increase in street crime.
Hilariously, Berzon contended that this 9th Circuit ruling would not mandate cities to provide full housing to the homeless; it would just prohibit them from moving or arresting the homeless for living on the streets. Which is somewhat like Tom Hagen telling Jack Woltz that while he doesn’t have to cast Johnny Fontane in his new war film, he can’t stop the Corleones from rearranging the family stable.
But here’s the problem: Cities that have attempted to provide increased housing for the homeless, despite some early successes, have seen their problems return.
Cities like Seattle and Los Angeles have attempted to build new housing. It’s been an expensive failure. It turns out that the carrot of housing must be accompanied by the stick of law enforcement. If you cannot compel drug addicts to enter treatment, or paranoid schizophrenics to take their medication, or those who refuse to live indoors to do so, homelessness will not abate.
As it is, the Supreme Court has damned America’s major cities to the continuation of the festering problem of homelessness. And that problem won’t be solved by judges who attempt to force social policy through deliberately misreading the Constitution, or who believe they are championing “freedom” for tens of thousands of Americans who are seriously mentally ill or addicted to drugs.
Monica Crowley, Treasury Department assistant secretary of public affairs, joins the podcast to talk about the “incredible economic boom” that followed the tax reform passed in 2017. Read the lightly edited transcript, posted below, or listen on the podcast:
Rachel del Guidice: The Daily Signal Podcast is coming to you from the U.S. Treasury Department today, and we’re joined by Monica Crowley, who is the agency’s assistant secretary of public affairs. Monica, thank you so much for being with us today.
Monica Crowley: Such a pleasure, thank you for having me.
del Guidice: We’re coming up on the two-year anniversary of the tax cuts, and given everything that’s happened in these two years, what is your message to the American people about tax reform?
Crowley: That economic freedom works. So, President Trump ran on, and he’s certainly run his presidency on, a platform of economic freedom.
The opposite of socialism isn’t capitalism, it’s freedom, and the president understood this coming in and created an economic policy agenda based on four core pillars. Tax reform being first and foremost, of course, but deregulation, unleashing the energy sector, and realigning international trade, trade reform.
We’re seeing all of these elements coming into play certainly over the last two years, and the results have been astounding, particularly on tax cuts. The TCJA, or Tax cuts and Jobs Act, which was signed by the president into law in December of 2017, has generated an incredible economic boom.
What we have seen is a record number of Americans who are working, we are seeing unemployment at a 50-year low, with certain groups of Americans seeing at or near historic lows for unemployment. African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and women—all-time lows for those groups.
Let’s talk about wage growth because that is an astounding and direct result of the TCJA. The average American has now experienced 3.1% increase year over year in wage growth. And when we talk about the bottom two quintiles of wage earners, those in essentially traditional blue-collar jobs, they have seen the greatest and fastest wage growth, 3.7% year over year. What we’re witnessing is a true blue-collar boom, but all Americans are benefiting as a direct result of the TCJA.
Rob Bluey: Monica, I’m sure that you’ve heard many stories of people who are benefiting directly as a result of this. Do you have any favorites that you’d like to share with our listeners that … come to mind? People who maybe have had a bonus that they never received before from their employer, have been able to do something with this extra money?
Crowley: Absolutely. Thanks to the TCJA, the average family of four making $75,000 a year has seen a tax cut of over $2,000 on average. That’s real money, despite the fact that the Democrats have tried to talk it down and minimize the effects, that’s real money. For anybody, but certainly for the average wage earner, that is huge.
By the way, it’s their money. So, this tax cut has really empowered the American people [to] keep more of their own hard-earned money, which they are putting back into the economy and providing for their families and their children, their education. It frees them up to start their own business and live their version of the American dream.
You asked about particular stories. We hear all the time from small business owners who have said, “The combination of tax reform and deregulation, getting big government off of our backs, have really allowed us to live our dream and do our business in the way that we originally envisioned, and really haven’t been able to do because of all of these restrictions on us. All these burdens of taxes and regulation.”
So, my heart gets warmed when I hear stories of small business owners who have launched their dream, because that’s what this country is all about. It’s aspirational and it’s about allowing people freedom, economic freedom, to do what they want and provide for themselves and their families in a way that brings them reward and joy.
del Guidice: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act included a bunch of reforms. Some of them were lowering the corporate rate, full and immediate expensing for businesses. Can you talk about some of the policies included in tax reform, and maybe highlight one that you think has been most beneficial for Americans today?
Crowley: Sure. … The tax package as a whole, the president wanted to make sure that middle-class Americans got most of the benefits of this, and that’s why … in addition to the blue-collar boom, you’re seeing a middle-class boom as well. So, the bulk of the tax reform was targeted to the middle class, which I know as a historian and political scientist, is also incredibly important for stability of any society. So, that in particular is something that I think has generated most of the economic growth.
The left has attacked the TCJA as only benefiting the wealthy, and that in fact is not true. The middle class has benefited and as we have seen, because of the record-low unemployment across the board, that groups that traditionally have not seen economic growth or the benefits of a growing economy—African Americans, Hispanic Americans, women, Asian Americans—that they are almost disproportionately benefiting from this economy because those tax cuts have been in place, and have benefited all Americans.
Bluey: You talk about the success and the benefits to all those Americans, of course, President Trump is somebody who has not been shy in his criticism of the media and their failure to tell the full story about the tax cuts.
Crowley: He’s not shy about much.
Bluey: Right. But on this day as Democrats seem intent on impeachment and doing other things to stymie the agenda, what has it been like to work with him and see his passion for these issues?
Crowley: Well, I am famously one of the very first, if not the first person, to go on national television a couple of days after he came down the escalator and went on national radio, and told the folks who were laughing up a storm about the idea of Donald Trump as a candidate, never mind as president, to stop laughing. Do not underestimate him. And I predicted he was going to pull the whole thing off.
So for me, it’s a source of wonderment for me and incredibly energizing for me to watch him in action and now be part of the Trump revolution, which is really all about economic freedom, protecting the hardworking American taxpayer, protecting the American worker, protecting American businesses so that they’re all free to do what they do best, which is compete, innovate, and succeed.
So for me, it is a great honor and a blessing to be part of this, and every day that I come into the White House campus and enter the Treasury Building and I see the White House there and the American flag, this American patriot, it still gets misty seven months into this job. I still get misty-eyed. It’s such an honor.
Bluey: Monica, you mentioned the Trump revolution, and part of that has been tax reform. However, we’ve seen some of the left say that they would repeal the tax cuts if they were given the chance. How would you say American businesses and even the overall economy would be affected if that actually happened?
Crowley: That would be disastrous for the U.S. economy. For a long time, we have heard from Democrats, the left, [the] president’s opponents talking about how they would roll back taxes and for a long time they’ve been talking in general terms about, “This is the new normal, globalization, stagnant wage growth, if little to any wage growth.” They’ve been talking about how we need to accept all of this because it’s the new normal and there was nothing we could do to reverse it.
President Trump’s economic freedom agenda has put the lie to that, and now people can see it with their own eyes. They’re living this Trump economy on the ground every day, benefiting from it. So when they hear from the president’s opponents that they’re going to roll back all of these things that have made their lives so much richer in every way, I just don’t see that as a political or economic message that would be resonating.
They now understand that what we as conservatives have been talking about for a long time, that when you have these pillars in place that work—tax reform, lower tax burden, tax cuts, deregulation, unleashing the energy sector and trade reform—when you have all of those pillars in place and they are working, that means that you are going to see an economic boom. We’ve been talking about this for a long time.
We’ve been stymied by even presidents who have been Republicans, we’ve been stymied in really effecting this kind of agenda. President Trump has put it into place and it is generating exactly what we always knew it was going to generate, which is a thriving economy that’s benefiting everyone.
Bluey: Let’s talk specifically about one of those other policies that you just mentioned, and that is trade. Of course, big news both on the China front with phase one of the trade deal there, USMCA [the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement], coming to a vote in congress. What will that mean to Americans? What’s your message to them about these trade deals?
Crowley: So, President Trump, when he was candidate Trump, he really built his campaign on this idea of economic freedom and an important part of that was the idea that if he became president, he was going to negotiate fair trade deals for the American people because he believes in the American worker, he believes in the American dream.
And he said, “For far too long the United States has been taken advantage of by countries like China, European Union, this NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement] deal is horrible and it’s putting our workers at a severe disadvantage, and if I become president, we’re going to be done with all of that.” He meant it.
So when he became president, he really from Day One put his attention to renegotiating these trade deals and trying to make sure that the American worker and American companies were protected.
So, you mentioned USMCA. Let’s deal with that first because that was first on the trade agenda. To have any American president get two foreign countries to agree to anything is quite the achievement.
Mexico and Canada have agreed to this new NAFTA deal, USCMA, which is a complete overhaul and modernization of the NAFTA agreement. It’s got tremendous protections in there for American workers.
Part of the negotiation with the Democrats back and forth too has been over environmental protections. They’re now in this deal as well. This is going to generate an incredible number of jobs and opportunities for the American people. The ITC [International Trade Commission] estimates hundreds of thousands of jobs created as a result of USMCA. So, he has taken NAFTA and brought it into the 21st century in a whole new framework that’s going to serve the United States.
In terms of China, China is probably the sexier deal, which is why everybody is fascinated by it, but USMCA is actually a bigger size deal than China, but going into the future because China has its sights set on economic domination, it is the sexier set of negotiations.
Phase one essentially focuses on intellectual property protection and a number of other things. It’s been a long and hard fought negotiation led by Ambassador [Robert] Lighthizer at USTR [the Office of the United States Trade Representative] and my boss, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who are superb negotiators.
The interesting thing to me as someone who worked with President [Richard] Nixon during the last years of his life, is watching the Chinese economy develop over the last 25 years.
So when I worked with President Nixon, who, as we all know, opened the door to China in 1972, I was with him in the early to mid 1990s, and I went with him on his last trip to China in 1993. Nixon is still considered a rock star, but when he was alive, it was like God from heaven had come down when he stepped out of his car in Beijing, and Shanghai, and all these cities.
I remember being in Shanghai and Beijing, a number of other places in China, with him in 1993 and seeing a country that was just beginning to make the decision to develop their economy.
So, I remember being in Shanghai, for example, and seeing a million cranes reaching into the sky in a million different directions, and there was some work being done. They were trying to throw up buildings really fast, but you could see it was just starting.
Well, about two months ago, two and a half months ago, I joined Ambassador Lighthizer and Secretary Mnuchin on their last trip to China as part of the round of trade talks. I remember, we were in Shanghai, I remember opening the drapes in my hotel room and looking across the river in Shanghai where I had seen 25 years ago all of those cranes in the air, and it was just a megalopolis. I don’t know if you guys have been to China recently, but the development is staggering.
You see the river and there’s literally a ship maybe every 100 yards making its way into the South China Sea. And I saw this and I thought, “In the space of one generation, the Chinese have gotten to be an industrial superpower.”
They will never voluntarily give up the theft, and deception, and brute force that they used to get there in the space of one generation. Therefore, you needed a blunt force instrument to get their attention and bring them to the table, and that’s what the president’s tariffs regime has been all about.
We can debate whether tariffs are good or bad as an academic exercise, but the only thing that got the Chinese talking were the tariffs, and the president reserves the right to reimpose tariffs at any given moment should the Chinese not live up to their promises and obligations held in the phase one agreement.
del Guidice: Monica, you had mentioned that the USMCA is going to generate an incredible number of jobs for the American people, and are there any other pieces of this trade deal that you want to highlight for everyday Americans that they might not be aware of as something that will be beneficial to them as this goes through?
Crowley: Sure. There’s one particular part of USMCA, which I don’t think has gotten a lot of love, but I think deserves some attention. So, thank you for giving me the question to highlight it. That’s the automotive sector in the United States.
Under USMCA, the car industry in Detroit and elsewhere in the U.S. will have access to these markets, which will be huge, which really was somewhat stymied by NAFTA. The automotive industry as estimated will generate 100,000 jobs, maybe more, which would be huge for our rust belt. So, thank you for saying that.
I wanted to highlight that, but also beyond the automotive sector, we have farmers [that] will benefit, ranchers [that] will benefit, our fishermen will benefit. American businesses of all sizes will benefit as a result of greater market access and greater worker protections for us here in the United States.
Bluey: Monica, we created The Daily Signal five years ago to tell the stories that were just not getting out to the American people, some of these wins that you’ve highlighted on the interview today, those stories that don’t get the coverage that they probably deserve, rightfully deserve, by the national news media. So, thank you for spending the time talking with us today.
Crowley: Well, it’s my great pleasure. Thank you so much for having me, and Merry Christmas.
Bluey: Merry Christmas.
del Guidice: Thank you, Monica, for joining us on The Daily Signal Podcast.
Here are several questions for biologists and medical professionals:
At all levels, governments ignore biology and permit people to make their sex optional on a birth certificate, Social Security card, or driver’s license.
If a person is found to have XY chromosomes (heterogametic sex), does a designation as female on his birth certificate, driver’s license, or Social Security card override the chromosomal evidence?
Similarly, if a person is found to have XX chromosomes (homogametic), does a designation as male on her birth certificate, driver’s license, or Social Security card override the chromosomal evidence?
If you were a medical professional, would you consider it malpractice for an obstetrics/gynecology medical specialist not to order routine Pap smears to screen for cervical cancer for a patient who identifies as a female but has XY chromosomes?
If you were a judge, would you sentence a criminal, who identifies as a female but has XY chromosomes, to a women’s prison? One judge just might do so.
Judge William Pryor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit focused on a Florida school district ruling that a transgender “boy,” a person with XX chromosomes, could not be barred from the boys’ restroom. Pryor suggested students shouldn’t be separated by gender at all.
Fear may explain why biologists in academia do not speak out to say that one’s sex is not optional. Since the LGBTQ community is a political force on many college campuses, biologists probably fear retaliation from diversity-blinded administrators.
It’s not just academics and judges who now see sex as optional.
Federal, state, and local governments are ignoring biology and permitting people to make their sex optional on a birth certificate, passport, Social Security card, and driver’s license. In New York City, intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title is a violation of the city’s human rights law.
If I said that my preferred title was “Your Majesty,” I wonder whether the New York City Commission on Human Rights would prosecute people who repeatedly refused to use my preferred title.
One transgender LGBTQ activist filed a total of 16 complaints against female estheticians with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal after they refused to wax his male genitals. He sought financial restitution totaling at least $32,500. One woman was forced to close her shop.
Fortunately, the activist’s case was thrown out by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, and he was instructed to pay $2,000 each to three of the women he attacked. The LGBTQ activist is not giving up. He is now threatening to sue gynecologists who will not accept him as a patient.
In 2012, an evangelical Christian baker in Colorado was threatened with jail time for refusing to bake a custom wedding cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony. When Christian bakery owner Jack Phillips won a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case with a 7-2 decision in June 2018 over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple based on his religious convictions, he thought his legal battles with the state of Colorado were over.
But now Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, faces a new court fight. This fight involves a lawyer who asked him to bake a cake to celebrate the anniversary of her gender transition. There are probably many bakery shops in and around Lakewood, Colorado, that would be happy to bake a cake for homosexuals; they are simply targeting Phillips.
For those in the LGBTQ community, and elsewhere, who support such attacks, we might ask them whether they would seek prosecution of the owner of a Jewish delicatessen who refused to provide catering services for a neo-Nazi affair.
Should a black catering company be forced to cater a Ku Klux Klan affair? Should the NAACP be forced to open its membership to racist skinheads and neo-Nazis? Should the Congressional Black Caucus be forced to open its membership to white members of Congress?
If you’re a liberty-minded American, your answers should be no.
Supporters of President Donald Trump camped out overnight to secure prime sitting for Wednesday evening’s “Merry Christmas Rally” in Battle Creek, Michigan, as House Democrats are in the final stages of completing their partisan impeachment proceedings.
Both President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence are scheduled to speak at the rally scheduled to kick off at 7:00 p.m. local time at Kellogg Arena. Footage shared by Fox 17 shows hundreds of Trump supporters bearing frosty temperatures in heavy snow gear through Tuesday evening into the morning. One supporter flashed a homemade “Trump 2020” sign as the camera showed off the long line to get into the venue.
Crowds camped out overnight at the Kellogg Arena in Battle Creek.
Trump’s “Merry Christmas Rally” is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. today. I’m live on @FOX17 asking these supporters what they hope to hear from the president. pic.twitter.com/5sRIxZykxc
“I want to hear him beat the Democrats, aka, the Dumbo-crats,” one supporter wearing a “Trump 2020” winter hat told Fox 17 when asked what he expects the president to discuss during the rally.
{PRESIDENT TRUMP VISITING BATTLE CREEK}- Supporters of @realDonaldTrump have been lined up in freezing temps all night ahead of today’s “Merry Christmas Rally.”
TRUMP IN MICHIGAN: Thousands of supporters waiting out the cold to be the first to hit Kellogg Arena in Battle Creek for a “Merry Christmas Rally” with @realDonaldTrump and @VP. The show will go on despite possible impeachment today.
More than 10,000 people are expected to attend the event, said the White House.
The full House began debating two articles of impeachment against President Trump — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — on Wednesday morning. The debate is slated to take up most of the day, setting the stage for the formal vote to coincide with the president’s rally.
Earlier in the day, President Trump urged Americans to pray for him and declared proceedings such as these should “never happen to another President again.”
“Can you believe that I will be impeached today by the Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats, AND I DID NOTHING WRONG! A terrible Thing. Read the Transcripts. This should never happen to another President again. Say a PRAYER!” he tweeted.
Can you believe that I will be impeached today by the Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats, AND I DID NOTHING WRONG! A terrible Thing. Read the Transcripts. This should never happen to another President again. Say a PRAYER!
