The Patriot Post® · Open & Shutdown: 2019 Starts With a Stoppage
In this new year of 2019, one old acquaintance that won’t be forgotten is the partial government shutdown of December 2018. As many Americans headed off to spend Christmas vacations with friends and family, Congress worked on a short-term deal to fund the government. President Trump indicated that he would veto any short-term deal that didn’t adequately address border security. When Congress failed to come to an agreement, the federal government entered a partial shutdown the Saturday before Christmas. Almost 12 full days later, the standoff between the president and Congressional Democrats remains as Congress returns this week.
The first order of business today when the 116th Congress convenes for the first time is voting for Speaker. After the Democrats have the gavel in hand, the House is expected to have two votes related to the government shutdown and spending. First, they will vote on an appropriations package for spending bills that have yet to be signed into law for the FY19 year, including the Department of Homeland Security spending bill, which has been the center of the shutdown controversy. The president has insisted on five billion dollars in spending for a border wall, which the Department of Homeland Security requests for securing our nation’s southern border. Democrats are currently not offering any counter proposal. The presumptive Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- Calif.) and new Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said they will vote on a “minibus” spending package since these bills were approved last year by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
But not only does this package exclude the border wall funding, it also contains major pro-life problems. Unrelated to Homeland Security and the border wall, the mini-bus spending bill will contain last year’s Senate State and Foreign Operations Appropriations committee bill which hurts or removes key pro-life policies that are already in place. Specifically, this part of the bill that Democrats plan to pass would gut the Mexico City Policy first implemented by Ronald Reagan and restored by President Trump to prevent funding for foreign NGO’s that perform abortion.
The second bill Pelosi intends to have the House pass is the short term continuing resolution (CR) the Senate passed before Christmas keep the government funded through February 8th. Lost in the press is that the House and Senate and president signed spending bills already for our national security by passing the Department of Defense spending bill and Labor, Health and Human Services spending bill. But border security and funds needed to build a border wall has stalled the negotiations, despite the request of additional funds coming from the Department of Homeland Security.
This shutdown is playing an important role in setting the tone for government for the next two years. As we move into a new Democrat-controlled Congress, the president’s resolve will be tested against legislators bound to obstruct him at every move. Unlike other politicians who come to the negotiating table waving a white flag, President Trump is standing firm for his promise of border security. Donald Trump campaigned on border security, and he is simply keeping his promises to the American people.
President Trump strongly believes, and I agree, that it’s time to take our border security seriously, because we care that American greatness can safely be offered to all who come here legally. Our hard-won freedom must be protected by the rule of law. Failure to preserve this rule of law will lead to a loss of freedom and safety for all Americans.
The Democrats have the votes in the House now to pass both bills, though they are dead on arrival in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has made clear he wants to pass a bill that can be supported by the president. The president and conservatives in Congress should do everything possible to ensure that all that’s been done in the past 2 years isn’t undone by a Democrat-controlled House. Shutting down a small part of the government is a small price to pay for making sure that the new Congress doesn’t restart the leftist machine that plagued America during the previous administration.
Originally published here.
Hope Restored for Syria’s Christians?
Just before Christmas, it appeared the United States was on the verge of quickly withdrawing remaining U.S. troops from Syria, a move which would have thrown the safety, security, and religious freedom of the area into doubt. Now, thankfully, the quick withdrawal isn’t so sure.
When President Trump announced this decision, FRC expressed concern — as did a number of the president’s supporters — about the religious freedom implications of this move. If the United States moves out, ISIS, Turkey, Iran, and other Islamist groups move in. As our own General Jerry Boykin pointed out to CBN News, among the vulnerable are Christian communities, including those made up of former Muslims, who would undoubtedly receive the brunt of ISIS’s rage if the group is allowed to fester and again conquer freed areas of Syria. Syrian Christians also appealed directly to fellow believers in the United States, asking not to be abandoned now, after our support enabled them to fight for some semblance of freedom.
As General Boykin told Fox News over the Christmas break, while he “wants the president to succeed,” he believes it would be a mistake to pull U.S. troops out of Syria this quickly. Aside from the shame of again abandoning our allies the Kurds, any genocide that occurs due to our withdrawal would destroy President Trump’s legacy on ISIS and the Middle East. It makes sense that the president would want to fulfill this campaign promise, but the United States needs to make sure ISIS is fully defeated.
It appears the president is listening. Following his initial statement about a “quick” withdrawal, Trump more recently announced that the withdrawal would take four months. After a recent lunch with the president, Senator Lindsey Graham (who shares our concerns about the move), said Trump “told me some things I didn’t know that make me feel a lot better about where we’re headed in Syria.” President Trump “promised to destroy ISIS. He’s going to keep that promise,” Graham said. “We’re not there yet. But as I said today, we’re inside the 10-yard line and the president understands the need to finish the job.”
One of the vulnerable areas is known as the Federation of Northern Syria, which is a modern religious freedom miracle — permitting those of all religions (including former Muslims) to live out their faith (something quite rare in the Middle East). Those cultivating this miracle want to build religious freedom for everyone over the long-term — the type of allies the United States needs as we seek to promote religious freedom around the world. Failure to support the work of such allies will inevitably result in destabilization, only causing more people to flee and seek refuge elsewhere.
Aside from the actual problems associated with a quick pull-out, the optics of this potential move are very bad. It appears President Trump spoke with Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan who had threatened to invade Northeastern Syria, and now the United States is planning to pull out. Even if the two leaders have some kind of agreement to protect the Kurds, this looks bad, because Erdogan cannot be trusted. Compounding all this is the fact that our withdrawal could lead to Iran’s increased presence, which will further threaten Israel. Yet now, with the Saudis ready to spend big money to re-build some of Syria, President Trump has a perfect opportunity.
It remains to be seen how this will all play out. With his announcement that our troops will now be withdrawn more slowly, it appears the president recognizes some of the concerns we and others have pointed out, and we are optimistic he will continue to take them into account. In supporting religious freedom models like the Federation of Northern Syria, and helping build them elsewhere in the region, President Trump has an opportunity for a truly historic legacy in the Middle East.
Originally published here.
Opportunity Knocks for EEOC Pick
While many Americans were busy wrapping and unwrapping Christmas gifts, another controversy emerged in Washington concerning the possible re-nomination of liberal activist Chai Feldblum, current member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seeking a third term. Feldblum isn’t just any liberal activist, she was an Obama-appointee to the commission. She was first appointed by recess appointment because she was too controversial to get through a Democrat controlled Senate, until former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid changed the rules. The controversy around Feldblum, in part, was her role in drafting the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), a bill designed to impose government-mandated sexual orientation and gender identity “rights” in private hiring practices. The Senate previously passed ENDA only to stall in the Republican-controlled House in 2013. Religious liberty advocates such as Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.) have blocked a vote on her confirmation this past Congress because of her radical views on how special rights on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity should prevail over First Amendment religious liberty protections.
Since Feldblum’s term expired on December 31, the question remains whether the White House will re-nominate her to the EEOC as one of the commission’s slots chosen by Senate Democrats. She previously stated, “Sexual liberty should win in most cases,” and “There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win …” In fact, she declared, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” [see Peter Sprigg’s blog post for full citations]. Given this president’s strong support for religious liberty both domestically and internationally it’s difficult to see her being re-nominated and being confirmed in the U.S. Senate.
Feldblum’s confirmation controversy is all the more timely given her views about a new proposed piece of legislation mistakenly endorsed by two evangelical entities. We wrote recently about the many problems with the “Fairness for All” proposal. This so-called compromise by some evangelicals would enshrine sexual orientation and gender identity privileges into federal civil rights law, but with limited religious liberty protections for churches and religious associations. Dr. Everett Piper, president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, rightly criticized this proposal in the Washington Times, where he pointed out that it is a fool’s errand that will undermine itself, since granting minority protected status in law on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity will inevitably undermine religious liberty exemptions. Piper used Feldblum’s radical stance on SOGI rights usurping religious freedom protections as an example. She responded to Piper’s piece claiming that she does, indeed, support religious liberty protections for “religious organizations” even if they disagree with her views on LGBT issues. Yet it remains unclear if Feldblum has reversed her prior views.
Does she now think that religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment should extend to individuals and entities in the public square, regardless of whether they are religious organizations or small businesses operated by the likes Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop who have repeatedly faced government discrimination for their faith on matters of sexuality and marriage? It seems Feldblum may be open to some religious liberty protections, but limited to certain types of organizations, rather than individual right protected by the constitution; a view that is not reflective of the president or most Americans.
LGBT activists aren’t content to only add legal requirements to employment law as Feldblum’s bill ENDA would have done. Indeed, they have new model legislation that is much broader and would make sweeping changes to over 25 areas of law — not just employment law — by adding LGBT government requirements. As I said on Fox News recently, Feldblum has taken a position 180 degrees from the Trump administration when it comes to religious freedom, and she reflects “era of the past, the Barack Obama era of hostility toward religious freedom.” Americans should respect each other and agree to disagree, but we don’t need laws that would punish people of faith for disagreeing over matters of faith and human sexuality. And we don’t need Chai Feldblum on the EEOC leading the charge to weaponize the workplace to undermine people’s sincerely held religious beliefs on the altar of liberal sexual ideologies.
Tony Perkins discussed this issue on Fox News with Shannon Bream on December 28, 2018. Watch the clip below:
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.