The Patriot Post® · Hillary Clinton Didn't Get the Memo
If Democratic Party leaders in Washington care to know why Hillary Clinton lost — garnering the fewest electoral votes by a Democratic nominee since 1988 — they might want to consider talking to David Betras, who serves as the chairman of the Mahoning County Democratic Party in Ohio. Betras blames Clinton’s loss on the Democratic Party caring “more about where someone else went to the restroom than whether they had a good-paying job.”
Last May, the county chairman sent the Clinton campaign a 1,300-word memo expressing concern about the campaign’s lack of focus on issues of concern to “blue collar voters” who “are, to put it mildly, less than enthusiastic about HRC’s positions on trade and the economy.” The memo was sent the same month the Obama administration announced a nationwide edict forcing every school to open locker rooms, showers and bathrooms to both biological sexes. However, the Clinton campaign apparently didn’t “get” this memo nor acknowledge the scores of groups including FRC that drew attention to the Left’s obsession with bathrooms. The same day the edict was issued, Hillary Clinton applauded it and even pledged as president to continue the “fight.”
What is driving Clinton and the Left’s fixation with bathrooms? Certainly not public opinion, as national and state battleground polls revealed strong opposition to the school edict. A WPA research survey commissioned by Family Research Council found two-thirds of American adults opposed to the edict — including nearly half of Democratic voters. Even the left-leaning Quinnipiac reported only 36 percent of Ohio voters in support of the locker room/shower mandate. In direct contrast with the Republican Party platform, the Democratic Party platform — with the support of Clinton — doubled down on President Obama’s bathroom edict. The only explanation for championing a cause that so many Americans oppose is that the LGBT lobby has seized control of the Democratic Party.
Originally published here.
Regulation Regression
As Americans continue to celebrate (or mourn, depending on how you voted) the transition from President Obama to President Trump, most news is focused on the president-elect’s picks for key staff positions for his incoming administration. What is less talked about is the Obama administration’s efforts to pass “midnight regulations” as a parting shot.
Regulation has been a byword for the Obama administration. Think about all they’ve done in the past eight years. The administration’s regulations showed a pattern of lawlessness that often forced an extremist view on Americans. The administration’s first year involved rescinding President Ronald Reagan’s executive order preventing funding for international organizations that participate in abortion and rewriting regulations protecting the conscience rights of pro-life health care entities. Remember how the administration also delayed for a year the statutory deadline for Obamacare’s individual mandate and has subsidized failing insurance companies, which Republicans claim is not allowed under the text of Obamacare?
We’ve also written in the past about the administration regulations and the numerous lawsuits over the Department of Health and Human Services’ contraceptive mandate that the Supreme Court rejected as it applies to family owned businesses like Hobby Lobby. And courts are still assessing the regulation’s accounting gimmick as it applies to non-profits like the Little Sisters of the Poor. The Department of Education’s “guidance” earlier this year was issued to force schools to allow boys in girls’ bathrooms and showers. The list goes on and on.
Yet, despite the election results, news reports suggest multiple federal agencies will attempt to dump even more regulations on the American people during Obama’s last month in office. These regulations will impact a variety of issues, from energy, transportation, trade, workplace, education, and even a proposed rule to prevent states from redirecting funds away from groups like Planned Parenthood.
Congress is aware of the administration’s plans and is not impressed. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and House committee chairmen sent a letter to department secretaries and administrators cautioning them not to finalize pending rules or regulations in the last days. McCarthy stated, “Should you ignore this counsel, please be aware that we will work with our colleagues to ensure that Congress scrutinizes your actions, and, if appropriate, overturns them.” The Congressional Review Act grants Congress the ability to use expedited procedures in the House and the Senate to disapprove of major regulations.
The outgoing administration’s efforts to dump more extreme regulations on our nation are telling of its goals. The focus is clearly on the president’s liberal legacy and ignores America’s rejection of their radical policies. It’s a good thing the people spoke and Congress is listening.
Originally published here.
Only Change Agents Need Apply
For the last eight years the Obama State Department has been focused on pushing sexual orientation and gender identity rather than upholding core American ideals. The result is a world where few regions are not in turmoil, the threat of radical Islam is ever-expanding, the loss of religious freedom continues, and America is weakened on the world stage.
The Obama administration has been spending its energy bullying African nations on LGBT issues instead of working with those countries to advance American interests. The Obama State Department under Secretary Clinton was so obsessed with social activism that it entirely neglected to keep America safe by naming and dealing with the real threat we face: radical Islamic terrorism.
The foreign policy priorities of the Obama administration over the past eight years have been so misguided, so destructive and so ineffective in tackling the actual issues we face that America is now in a gravely weakened and dangerous position. America’s precarious state of affairs does not just require a small course correction but a radical break from the status quo. The mandate given to the Trump administration by the voters demands a foreign policy that does this much, and we must have a secretary of state who embodies this approach.
There are a number of candidates that can accomplish this mission, but, unfortunately, Mitt Romney is not one of them. While I like Mitt Romney and supported him after he became the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, there is nothing to suggest he will be a change agent at State. In fact, Governor Romney is the one candidate most likely to be the carrier of the Republican Establishment into the State Department, which would set up an ongoing conflict between the stated foreign policy goals of President-elect Trump and the actual agency that is tasked with pursuing his goals and objectives.
Additionally, the state of religious freedom around the world has grown perilous under President Obama. The issue does not need merely to be addressed, but aggressively tackled. The foreign policy challenges associated with radical Islamic terrorism do not need to merely be noted, but attacked with zeal. The next secretary of state will have to aggressively confront these issues head-on in accord with the mandate for change the voters gave to President-Elect Trump. Donald Trump needs an agent of change to head the Department of State and we do not believe it is Mr. Romney.
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.