Search This Blog

Friday, April 28, 2017

Reagan's Lesson for Trump

Brent Bozell

It's something most conservatives would not have imagined a year ago: The opening act of Donald Trump's agenda in the White House contains a real whiff of President Ronald Reagan. To be sure, there's plenty the Reaganites won't like -- talk of trillion-dollar federal building campaigns, taxing business at the border, etc. -- but there's plenty to applaud as well.

He's proposing dramatic across-the-board tax cuts. That's Reaganesque. He's reasserting American strength and resolve in response to the dictators who rattle sabers at America. That's Reaganesque. He appointed a Supreme Court justice who follows the Constitution instead of acting like a superlegislator. That's Reaganesque. He's working diligently to reduce the power of Washington, D.C. That's mega Gipper.

What's missing? Craig Shirley has emerged as perhaps the most knowledgeable historian of Reagan alive today. His fourth biography is out, and it's every bit as fascinating as the first three. "Reagan Rising" connects the dots between the 1976 and 1980 campaigns. President Trump and/or his closest advisors need to read this book.

Shirley drives home a key point: Reagan did not run against the Democrats. He did not run against the left. He ran against the establishment -- at the time dominated by liberal Democrats but not limited to them. If he was to become president, he also had to defeat the Republican establishment of moderates, whose collective blood curdled at the thought of him being elected.

Shirley writes that on Jimmy Carter's Inauguration Day in 1977, outgoing President Gerald Ford told a reporter as he flew out of town that he would like to run again in 1980. He added, "I don't want anyone to preempt the Republican presidential nomination." He meant Reagan.

The establishment narrative was repeated constantly: Reagan was racist, sexist, homophobic, imperialist, an evil manipulator, dumb as a board and completely over his head.

Reagan championed American exceptionalism. He didn't wish greatness for America. It already was great. He called for a return to it. America could become the strongest economic force in America -- again. America could become the leader of the free world -- again. America could become a civil society -- again. In advancing these themes, he was directly challenging and threatening the GOP establishment. It was content with bloated federal power, high taxes, live-and-let-live detente and (foremost) the societal decomposition of abortion.

Trump is facing the same establishment hostility because he poses the same threat (maybe an even larger one) to its power. But there's a huge difference: his response. The issue is one of temperament, which Shirley captures so well because he understands Reagan so well.

Trump and Reagan had the same slogan, except for one all-important thing missing from Trump's version. In "Let's Make America Great Again," Reagan was inviting America to join him as his partner in this crusade. As Shirley reminds us, in Reagan's acceptance speech at the 1980 Republican convention in Detroit, he said "we," "us" and "our" more than 200 times. Compare that to these painful last eight years, when President Obama used "I" or "my" hundreds of times in his speeches.

Candidate Trump -- the Donald -- has always tilted toward Obama's boastfulness. President Trump needs to stop that. Reagan's humility and confidence inspired the country. Trump must do the same if he wants to succeed. He has the refreshing confidence. He needs to find his inner public humility.

No one can tell Donald Trump that he doesn't know how to win in politics. Governance, as he's learning, is another animal. Trump sees himself as transformational, and that is good. He will not be content with just dismantling the disasters created by Obama. He will push -- and is already pushing -- a boldness we haven't seen in GOP presidents, or even most GOP candidates, since Reagan.

Maybe he should invite Craig Shirley to the Oval Office for a long chat.

Duke University Study: Fracking Isn't Contaminating Ground Water

Matt Vespa

We have another study from Duke University that shows groundwater isn’t being polluted by fracking, despite the cries from the environmentalists that the process, which is used to tap into natural gas resources. It’s been the crux of their narrative against this sector of the economy that’s rapidly growing throughout the country. The study was three years in the making, peer reviewed, and was recently published in the European journal Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. They did say that surface water might be impacted due to spills:

Fracking has not contaminated groundwater in northwestern West Virginia, but accidental spills of fracking wastewater may pose a threat to surface water in the region, according to a new study led by scientists at Duke University.

“Based on consistent evidence from comprehensive testing, we found no indication of groundwater contamination over the three-year course of our study,” said Avner Vengosh, professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment. ”However, we did find that spill water associated with fracked wells and their wastewater has an impact on the quality of streams in areas of intense shale gas development.”

“The bottom-line assessment,” he said, “is that groundwater is so far not being impacted, but surface water is more readily contaminated because of the frequency of spills.”


The Duke team collaborated with researchers from The Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Stanford University and the French Geological Survey to sample water from 112 drinking wells in northwestern West Virginia over a three-year period.

Twenty of the water wells were sampled before drilling or fracking began in the region, to provide a baseline for later comparisons.

Samples were tested for an extensive list of contaminants, including salts, trace metals and hydrocarbons such as methane, propane and ethane. Each sample was systematically analyzed using a broad suite of geochemical and isotopic forensic tracers that allowed the researchers to determine if contaminants and salts in the water stemmed from nearby shale gas operations, from other human sources, or were naturally occurring.

Fox News added that the Chamber of Commerce projected this industry will create 3.5 million jobs by 2035. Still, this isn’t the first study that shows fracking does zilch to groundwater. The Environmental Protection Agency’s own 2012 review of the drinking water in Dimock, PA, which served as ground zero for the anti-fracking hysteria, noted that the homes that were supposedly impacted did not have unsafe drinking water flowing through them. Oh, and if the greens want to harp on surface water, they should just take a seat. Remember when the EPA dumped 3 million gallons of toxic water into Colorado’s river systems in 2015? I do. The clean up costs were projected to soar into the hundreds of millions, and it was completely avoidable. The toxic water was from the Gold King Mine, which had been abandoned for a decade. The EPA’s clean up crew royally screwed up and released the water into the Animas River, which connects to the San Juan River. It eventually connects into the larger Colorado River. It turned some portions of the Animas River orange. By fall of 2015, the projections for the cleanup soared into the billions. Also, need I remind the Left that their camp that was set up to take a stand against the Dakota Access Pipeline, which was over water contamination concerns, actually posed a threat to the nearby waterways…because of all the garbage they left behind? Yeah, that happened.

Planned Parenthood’s Health Services Decline as Abortions, Tax-Payer Funding Rise

Planned Parenthood’s Health Services Decline as Abortions, Tax-Payer Funding Rise

PP numbers

Planned Parenthood is receiving more government funding and performing more abortions than it did 10 years ago. Meanwhile, non-abortive services like cancer screenings are on the decline.

Pro-life activist group Live Action summarized the data in a new videoreleased Monday. (Scroll down to watch.)

The abortion provider is attempting to stave off a heated effort to strip its tax-payer funding. Earlier this month, President Donald Trump signed a billallowing states to defund Title X of the Public Health Services Act, which funds family planning services. The bill was passed by the Senate in March with a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence. 

An obvious swipe at Planned Parenthood, the bill was called a “major pro-life victory” by House Speaker Paul Ryan. Democrats decried the action, claiming it would rob women of critical health care.

Planned Parenthood defenders often point to the fact that federal law already prohibits tax-payer funding of abortions. They also cite numbers claiming abortion makes up only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s work. But that hasn’t stopped pro-life activists and Conservative lawmakers from fighting it.

Planned Parenthood currently receives over $500 million in government funding. That’s reportedly up from $272 million in 2004, as Live Action pointed out in its new video. Despite the bump in tax-payer dollars, Planned Parenthood’s clientele is the smallest it’s been in a decade. Live Action reports that the number of Planned Parenthood clients has dropped by half a million in six years. In the last 10 years, the organization closed over 200 facilities. 

Also in the last decade, Planned Parenthood’s annual breast exams have dropped by 60 percent. It now does less than 2 percent of the nation’s breast exams. Pap tests have dropped by 77 percent, now accounting for less than 1 percent of all pap tests in the nation. Abortions, however, increased by 27 percent between 2004 and 2014. Today, Planned Parenthood performs nearly 35 percent of America’s abortions. 

LifeSite News listed the exact numbers, which come straight from Planned Parenthood’s own reports. (View the 2005-2006 report and the 2014-2015 report.)

"America's women and children deserve better,” Live Action president Lila Rose told LifeSite. “Washington must ensure that taxpayer money spent on health care for women is actually spent on health care, not on keeping the doors to America's largest abortion chain open.”

Read More Here

The Hill's Whip List: 21 GOP no votes on new ObamaCare replacement bill

The Hill's Whip List: 21 GOP no votes on new ObamaCare replacement bill
By The Hill staff - 04-26-17 15:18 PM EDT

House Republicans have an updated bill to repeal and replace ObamaCare, and The Hill has a new whip list.

The updated bill includes an amendment that would allow states to opt out of key ObamaCare rules, including on minimum coverage requirements and allowing insurers to charge more based on individuals' health.

Those changes are designed to win over conservatives, and the new legislation has been backed by the House Freedom Caucus and outside groups including the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks.

The question is whether GOP centrists can back it.

A mix of centrists and conservatives objected to the earlier ObamaCare bill, forcing GOP leaders to call off a planned vote.

No Democrats are expected to vote for the measure, meaning Republicans can only afford 22 defections.

Below is an initial list of where key Republicans stand based on an earlier Whip List from The Hill and lawmakers' statements on the new amendment.

The list will be continually updated. Please send updates to

This list was last updated on April 27 at 5:07 p.m.

Recent updates: Reps. Mark Amodei (Nev.), Michael Turner (Ohio), Mimi Walters (Calif.) Ted Yoho (Fla.), Mike Coffman (Colo.) and Ryan Costello (Pa.).

NO (21)

Rep. Mark Amodei (Nev.) - Amodei told ABC on Thursday he is still a no.

Rep. Andy Biggs (Ariz.) - "The MacArthur amendment is an effort to make the AHCA better, but it does not meet my constituents' threshold for repeal," the Freedom Caucus member said. Biggs was a no on the first bill.

Rep. Mike Coffman (Colo.) - Coffman told Politico he is currently a no.

Rep. Barbara Comstock (Va.) - The centrist Republican told The Hill she is still a no. Comstock is one of Democrats' top targets in 2018.

Rep. Ryan Costello (Pa.) - Costello told reporters Thursday he was a no.

Rep. Jeff Denham (Calif.) - Denham told The Hill he was a no on Wednesday.

Rep. Charlie Dent (Pa.) - The co-chairman of the centrist Tuesday Group is still a no.

Rep. Dan Donovan (N.Y.) - The freshman lawmaker told The Hill on Wednesday he still plans to vote no.

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) - A centrist, Fitzpatrick is still a no.

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (Wash.) - Herrera Beutler, a member of the Tuesday Group, is a no, CNN reported.

Rep. Walter Jones (N.C.) - Jones, who has bucked GOP leaders on a number of occasions, is still a no.

Rep. John Katko (N.Y.) - Katko is still a no. "To me, it doesn't move the needle enough," he told Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton won Katko's district in November.

Rep. Leonard Lance (N.J.) - Lance is still a no.

Rep. Frank LoBiondo (N.J.) - LoBiondo is still voting no despite potential changes.

Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.) - Massie, a conservative who is not in the Freedom Caucus, said he is still a no.

Rep. Patrick Meehan (Pa.) - Meehan said the revised bill would raise premiums for those with pre-existing conditions and older Americans.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) - The centrist Republican from south Florida said she is still a no even with the amendment. Clinton won Ros-Lehtinen's district by nearly 20 points in 2016.

Rep. Chris Smith (N.J.) - Smith told ABC he is still a no. The New Jersey lawmaker is meeting with leaders Thursday.

Rep. Michael Turner (Ohio) - Turner Thursday told CNN he is still a no.

Rep. Daniel Webster (Fla.) - Webster is still a no. The Florida lawmaker wants changes that provide more Medicaid funding for nursing homes.

Rep. David Young (Iowa) - Young told reporters he is still a no. A Paul Ryan-aligned super PAC pulled their support for him after his decision not to back the initial bill in March.


Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.) - The Freedom Caucus member is reviewing the changes, according to Politico. He was a no in March.

Rep. Brian Babin (Texas) - The Texas lawmaker, a former member of the Freedom Caucus, was yes on the first bill.

Rep. Rob Bishop (Utah) - Bishop was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Rod Blum (Iowa) - Freedom Caucus member was a no on the first bill.

Rep. Ken Buck (Colo.) - Buck supported the first bill.

Rep. Ted Budd (N.C.) - The freshman lawmaker was a no on the first bill. Budd was backed by Club for Growth in the 2016 election. The conservative group opposed the earlier GOP bill but now supports it.

Rep. Paul Cook (Calif.) - Cook was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Rick Crawford (Ark.) - Crawford was a no on the first bill.

Rep. John Culberson (Texas) - Culberson was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Carlos Curbelo (Fla.) - Curbelo told The Hill on Wednesday he was undecided on the revised bill.

Rep. Warren Davidson (Ohio)  - Davidson was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Ron DeSantis (Fla.) - DeSantis was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.) - A centrist, Diaz-Balart voted to advance the first bill in the House Budget Committee but said he had "serious concerns."

Rep. Jeff Duncan (S.C.) - Duncan, a Freedom Caucus member, was a lean no on the first bill.

Rep. Neal Dunn (Fla.) - Dunn was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Tom Emmer (Minn.) - Emmer was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Ron Estes (Kan.) - Sworn in this week, Estes says he needs to review the changes.

Rep. John Faso (N.Y.) - Faso was undecided on the first bill and expressed concerns about removing minimum insurer coverage requirements.

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (Neb.) 

Rep. Trent Franks (Ariz.) - The Freedom Caucus member was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (N.J.) - The chairman of the Appropriations Committee was a no on the first bill.

Rep. Tom Garrett (Va.) - Garrett was a no on the first bill.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (Texas) - The Freedom Caucus member was a no on the first bill.

Rep. Paul Gosar (Ariz.) - Gosar was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Andy Harris (Md.) - Harris was a no on the first bill.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.)  - Hunter was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Will Hurd (Texas) - Hurd was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.) - Issa declined to share his position on Wednesday. On the last bill, he was a likely yes.

Rep. Mike Johnson (La.) - Johnson was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. David Joyce (Ohio) - Joyce, formerly a no, said Tuesday he is undecided.

Rep. Trent Kelly (Miss.) - Kelly was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Pete King (N.Y.) - King was leaning no on the first bill.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) - Kinzinger is undecided. He was a yes on the earlier bill.

Rep. Steve Knight (Calif.) - Knight was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. David Kustoff (Tenn.) - Kustoff was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Ra l Labrador (Idaho) - The Freedom Caucus member was a no on the first bill.

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (Calif.) - LaMalfa was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Mia Love (Utah) - Love was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Brian Mast (Fla.) - Mast told CNN he is undecided on the new bill. Mast was a lean yes on the first bill.

Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas) - McCaul was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Steve Pearce (N.M.) - Pearce was a lean no on the first bill.

Rep. Scott Perry (Pa.) - Perry was a lean no on the first bill.

Rep. Bruce Poliquin (Maine) - Poliquin, a centrist, was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Ted Poe (Texas) - Poe was a yes on the first bill.

Rep. Bill Posey (Fla.) - Posey was a no on the first bill.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.) - Rohrabacher was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Ed Royce (Calif.) - The House Foreign Affairs chairman is undecided and has serious concerns with the revised bill, a spokesperson told The Hill.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) - A member of the Tuesday Group, Stefanik was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Glenn Thompson (Pa.) - Thompson was a no on the first bill.

Rep. Fred Upton (Mich.) - Upton was a yes but is now undecided. He voted to advance the bill on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Rep. David Valadao (Calif.) - Valadao was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Randy Weber (Texas) - The Freedom Caucus member was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (Ohio) - Wenstrup was undecided on the first bill.

Rep. Rob Wittman (Va.) - Wittman was a no on the first bill.

Rep. Kevin Yoder (Kan.)

Rep. Don Young (Alaska) - Young was a lean no on the first bill.

YES (11)

Rep. Ralph Abraham (La.) - Abraham also backed the first bill.

Rep. Dave Brat (Va.) - The Freedom Caucus member is now a yes.

Rep. Mo Brooks (Ala.)  - The Freedom Caucus member was a no, but is now supports the revised bill..

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (Tenn.) - The Freedom Caucus member says he'll support the bill now with the changes. He was a no in March.

Rep. Jody Hice (Ga.) - Hice, a Freedom Caucus member, is a yes on the revised bill. In a statement, he said he supported the bill, but added, "the battle for a full repeal is not over."

Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio) - Jordan, a former chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, is now a yes. "It is our best chance to pass a bill through the House that will actually reduce the cost of health insurance for everyday Americans," he said Wednesday.

Rep. Tom MacArthur (N.J.) - The leader of the centrist Tuesday Group negotiated the changes to the bill.

Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.) - The leader of the House Freedom Caucus negotiated the changes with MacArthur.

Rep. Mark Sanford (S.C.) - Sanford, a member of the Freedom Caucus, flipped to yes from no after the changes.

Rep. Mimi Walters (Calif.) - Walters told the Los Angeles Times she is still a yes.

Rep. Ted Yoho (Fla.) - Yoho, a Freedom Caucus member, told Fox News he is a "yes, under duress." Yoho was a no on the first bill.


Rep. Tom Reed (N.Y.) - Reed is now a lean yes. He voted the first bill out of the Ways and Means Committee.

New bill tests GOP promise on pre-existing conditions

New bill tests GOP promise on pre-existing conditions
By Peter Sullivan - 04-28-17 06:00 AM EDT

The revised Republican ObamaCare replacement bill is testing the party's pledge to preserve protections for people with pre-existing health conditions.

House Republicans' own website states that people should "never" be charged more for having a pre-existing condition, but the revised bill would allow just that in states that are granted a waiver from ObamaCare's protections.

An amendment from Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) would allow states to apply for waivers from what is known as community rating, which prevents people with pre-existing conditions from being charged higher premiums. Without that protection, insurers could go back to charging people with pre-existing conditions exorbitantly high premiums, which could put coverage out of reach for many.

Under the amendment, people would still be protected if they maintain "continuous coverage," meaning they did not have a gap in coverage. And in order to receive the waivers, states would have to set up high-risk pools to help provide coverage for sick people.

Critics of the high-risk pools say they were tried before ObamaCare was enacted and were ineffective.

The possibility that some states could go back to the days of insurers charging sick people high rates is testing Republican vows.

President Trump had promised to keep ObamaCare protections for people with pre-existing conditions. "It happens to be one of the strongest assets," Trump told CBS's "60 Minutes" shortly after the election.

Some moderate Republican lawmakers are opposing the new healthcare bill on the grounds that it breaks the pledge on pre-existing conditions.

Asked about the pledge on the House Republican website, Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), who opposes the bill, told MSNBC: "I do not think that the current configuration of the law is consistent with that and that's why I'm voting as I'm voting."

"It would cost people more than it's costing them now, people who are already sick, and that's not going to help those people," Rep. Dan Donovan (R-N.Y.), another moderate "no" vote, said on CNN of the revised bill.

Many Republican lawmakers also pledged not to let people with pre-existing conditions get charged more. However, some of those lawmakers are now supporting the amendment that would allow states to repeal the ObamaCare protection.

"We're not going back to the days when they could underwrite you, say, 'Oh yeah, we'll cover you, it'll just be so expensive you can't afford it,' " House Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) told a town hall in his district earlier this month. "That is not a plan I can support."

Asked about the comments, an Energy and Commerce aide pointed to $130 billion in the bill in funding for high-risk pools and similar mechanisms to help sick people get coverage.

"The MacArthur Amendment preserves important protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions while also giving states flexibility to design insurance programs that work for their unique populations," the aide said. "The $130 billion dollars in funding for states to build risk-sharing programs will ensure that both our promises of protecting patients and lowering premiums are kept."

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), the chief deputy whip, earlier this month had warned that the demand from the Freedom Caucus for states to get waivers from community rating and other ObamaCare protections would be "a bridge too far for our members."

McHenry spoke in personal terms about his family medical history to tout the importance of the ObamaCare protections, contained in Title I of the law.

"If you look at the key provisions of Title I, it affects a cross section of our conference based off of their experience and the stories they know from their constituents and their understanding of policy," McHenry said then.

McHenry is now whipping his colleagues to support the measure.

Larry Levitt, a health policy expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said the revised GOP bill "effectively eliminates guaranteed access to insurance for people with pre-existing conditions."

While people who maintained continuous coverage would still be protected, Levitt said some people have gaps in coverage because they cannot afford it, and would not be protected from potentially "astronomical" premiums.

The $130 billion for programs like high-risk pools "would help," Levitt said, "but none would provide guaranteed access to people with pre-existing conditions."

 The American Medical Association, in a letter opposing the revised bill, warned that allowing insurers to charge much higher rates to sick people would make pre-existing condition protections "illusory."

Some moderate Republicans are struggling with the changes to pre-existing condition rules, after having faced rowdy town halls this month where those protections were front and center.

"I made it very clear ... to my constituents that I'm going to protect pre-existing conditions, and so this is a fairly complicated proposal, so I've really got to review it," said Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.).

"Tax reform is taking the taxes off things that have been taxed in the past and putting taxes on things that haven't been taxed before."

-- Art Buchwald

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Sanctuary Cities Ruling Continues Troubling Trend

Sanctuary Cities Ruling Continues Troubling Trend

Wednesday - April 26, 2017

RUSH: I have to talk about this judge, folks, and what’s happening here, because remember the piece that I shared with you from Daniel Greenfield, “The Civil War is Here” about the left simply respecting no authority other than its own, no authority in the Constitution, they do not respect the authority of election results. And this is now the third or fourth Trump executive order which has been stayed by Obama — well, one was a Bush 43 appointed judge. The others have been liberal Democrat judges mostly appointed by Obama.

And depending on where you go today and last night, you can find analysis of the judge’s decision, “You know, it’s a nothing burger, folks. I mean, the judge’s order is irrelevant because it doesn’t stop what the president wants to do, because what the president’s order is is not establishing any new law,” all of which is true. So from a legal standpoint, it may be a nothing burger, but it is far from a nothing burger politically. It is a huge deal politically, what these judges are doing.

It is beginning to look like there is a coordinated effort among some in the federal judiciary to simply, what’s the word, ignore President Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief under the belief that he is not fit for office, under the belief that he’s a maniac, under the belief that he’s insane because he had syphilis or whatever the hell fool notions these people believe. It appears now that there is a coordinated effort to thwart and oppose President Trump at every opportunity the judiciary has to do so.

We’ve obviously got judge shopping going on. I mean, these requests for stays and lawsuits happen in San Francisco or Seattle, where the appeal will go to the Ninth Circuit. This is not done haphazardly and randomly. And it is part and parcel of what we’ve been talking about, and that is the ongoing effort by the left to delegitimize the election, to simply say, “We don’t accept it. We refuse to accept the outcome of the election. Donald Trump is president, and we in the federal judiciary are gonna do everything we can when we have the chance to stop this president in his tracks from accomplishing anything he seeks to accomplish that we can stop.”

The actual ruling yesterday, which we’ll go through here in a second, may in fact be nothing legally, but politically I think this is huge, because that’s what this is. These judges are not ruling on the merits of the law. They are not ruling on anything judicial. They are ruling as pure political participants. And they are enforcing their own policy preferences in their efforts to use their power to thwart and stop the president of the United States.

By the way, greetings, and great to have you. Here’s the phone number if you want to be on the program: 800-282-2882. And the email address is

Okay. So what was this executive order? In the strict sense of the executive order, there was nothing new in it. There was no new appropriation of money. There was no new law. There was no new executive action. All this executive order was, essentially, was a statement that existing federal law regarding the funding of sanctuary cities would be enforced. That is all this executive order was. Some people might say, “Well, then it’s a bogus executive order. Trump’s just grandstanding.” Maybe.

You might be able to get away with saying that this was simply a climb to the mountaintop and a shout that says, “Listen to me, we’re gonna start enforcing the law,” which is all that Trump has been doing when it comes to immigration. There is no new immigration law in this country. All there is and what’s all of all of this controversy and all of this roiling everybody is the decision by the Trump administration to enforce existing law, be it regarding the border, be it illegal entry and deportation, be it what to do about criminal illegals, be it what to do about sanctuary cities.

All this is is the enforcement of existing law. The reason why it looks so extreme to some people or outrageous is that we haven’t been enforcing immigration law. We have been behaving under the Obama administration as though there isn’t any immigration law and that whatever Obama wants to do is fine. And you will note that whenever Obama did create executive orders that did create new law, there wasn’t a judiciary mobilized to stop him.

There was one judge in Texas by the name of Hannon who did, but in every other case of Obama executive orders, the judiciary just rolled right over. But here with Trump, they are — it’s hard to say that it’s conspiratorially unified. It is what it is. Liberals are liberals and they do not need memos back and forth to be told what to do. They do not need instructions.

They are liberals, and, as such, they know that they exist to stop Trump. They believe, nobody has to tell ’em, Trump is illegitimate. They believe, nobody has to tell ’em, that Trump’s election was illegitimate. These are the kind of people that believe the Russians really did impact the election and therefore Trump and everything he’s doing is illegitimate. Whenever they have a chance to stop it, they’re gonna do it.


RUSH: So we have, I think, a dire circumstance. I don’t think this is a nothing burger. I don’t think that this is nothing to get all excited about. In the legal sense the judge did not stop the enforcement of existing law. “Well, Rush, the media –” the media is not telling the truth about it because I don’t think the media understands what happened here. All that the media sees is that another judge told Trump to go to hell, and they love it and that’s all that matters. Now they can report another judge told Trump he can’t do what he wants to do because Trump’s irresponsible, Trump’s illegitimate, thank God for the judge, and that’s the narrative.

But that’s not what the judge did. That’s not what his executive order was. His executive order was a pure, 100 percent political statement, and it contained what every other judge that has stopped Trump to date has contained. “Well, you know, he said during the campaign he was gonna ban all Muslims. And he said during the campaign that he was gonna kick people out of sanctuary cities.” So the judge cites that stuff as evidence and justification for doing what he’s done here to theoretically stop Trump.

But even in this order the judge admits that there’s nothing new here. In this order the judge admits that he’s not stopping anything. If you read the whole thing — reading the whole thing is a slog, which is why the Drive-Bys are not going to do so. The judge’s name is Orrick. You might have heard the name because he’s the guy that found against the people that created the videos, the secret videos exposing Planned Parenthood for chopping up babies and selling body parts. He found against the people who conducted those secret video tapings. He’s an Obama fundraiser, he’s an Obama donor, he’s a bundler, 200 grand. He worked in the Justice Department.

So he’s a full-fledged down-the-line, perfectly flaked and formed modern-day leftist extremist. But if you spend the time on the exact order — for example, the judge acknowledges that the construction of the Trump executive order, the way it’s written and what it proposes, he acknowledges that. He agrees with it. The executive order that Trump is ballyhooing here is simply a reinforcement of existing law. There’s nothing new in this executive order. It’s just Trump announcing that we’re gonna be enforcing the law.

And some leftists are saying that Trump’s simply trying to score political points with this, and it may be. It could be that Trump wants everybody to know that he’s a new sheriff, there’s a new sheriff in town, and this law that’s been ignored, we are gonna enforce it. But the judge acknowledges that. The judge in his ruling acknowledges that the Trump executive order does nothing more than call for the enforcement of already existing law. The judge admits this! This judge is trying to embarrass Trump. Thing was rolled out, this executive order was rolled out with, you know, a lot of pomp, a lot of circumstance.

And this judge makes it clear in the ruling that he wants Trump brought back down to earth. He wants it known that Trump is pretending, that Trump is trying to do something here that he’s not doing. He’s not doing anything new, and the judge wants to expose Trump here as effectively writing an executive order that doesn’t do anything, other than proclaim we’re gonna follow the law.

And as I said, he spends a lot of time quoting stump speeches made by Trump and his campaign aides. You know, this is the way Trump, when he campaigns, the way he sells policy and the way he makes promises, those things are now being considered to have been legal utterances by a man who was not president. Trump is being held legally to concepts he only stated as a candidate. Like a Muslim ban, there hasn’t been a Muslim ban, but the judge here says, “He wants to. He wants to do that, and he wants to kick all these sanctuary citizens out and he wants to take their money away, and so I’m gonna make sure he can’t do it.”

In one of the — my buddy Andy McCarthy calls it one of the most disingenuous passages in the ruling — the judge asserts that the executive order directs the attorney general and the Homeland Security secretary to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions are not eligible to receive federal grants. That is not true. In fact, that is an out-and-out lie. I don’t know purposefully or not, that’s a bit far, but it simply is not true. In quoting, the judge omitted the key passage in the executive order, which actually states the following: “The attorney general and the secretary of Homeland Security, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with the law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with the law are not eligible to receive federal grants.”

All that statement is is a statement of current law that is in the executive order, but what the judge left out in his ruling is the phrase “to the extent consistent with the law.” So in his ruling, the judge wants people at times to think Trump is trying a sneaky maneuver here and at other places in the order the judge is admitting that there’s nothing new here, no new ground being broken.

And even when this thing was being put together and argued, Justice Department lawyers emphasized that this executive order did nothing but reaffirm existing law. And it’s in the argument. But the judge refused to listen. He didn’t want that to be part of the evidence he would use for his ruling because what fun would be that be? What kind of excitement for a liberal judge could there be in stopping something that does nothing more than state we’re going to enforce federal law?

So the judge tries to make it look like that the Trump administration has much bigger plans that they’re not admitting to, and he goes back and cites campaign statements as evidence for what might really be going on here. This is so bogus. And it’s getting so tiresome. It has nothing to do with the law. This ruling was totally unnecessary. The executive order wasn’t really necessary, other than for Trump to make a statement about what their policy’s gonna be, because it differs from the previous administration, which was not enforcing immigration law. Trump wants everybody to know as often as he can say it that he is going to.


RUSH: To make this ruling suitable for the Drive-Bys to report it as a snub of Trump and an arrest, if you will, of Trump’s policy, the judge literally had to invent a violation. They had to invent, the judge had to invent a violation. In other words, the judge had to claim that the Trump administration was already in violation of law regarding sanctuary cities, which gave him the justification for shutting them down. If Trump is violating the law, then the judge is thoroughly entitled to stop Trump.

And I just happened to see in a panel discussion on CNN some completely uninformed woman talking about this, and she was referring to the part that I just shared with you, the judge’s opinion where he purposely leaves out the most important part of a paragraph in the executive order.


RUSH: Here, ladies and gentlemen, is what the media want you to believe about Trump’s executive order. They want you to believe that Trump decided on his own to take money away from cities that are sanctuary cities. They want you to think that Trump issued an executive order that will allow him and his emissaries to simply stop sending federal money to San Francisco, to New York, to Santa Clara. The media wants you to think that this is something brand-new.

They want you to think that Trump is behaving like a tyrannical dictator because he hates Mexicans and he hates immigrants and this is the way he’s gonna punish people who are only behaving in compassionate way and trying to help the downtrodden. And this mean-spirited SOB Trump, he’s just gonna go in there and he’s gonna take money away from these cities and everybody’s gonna starve and it’s gonna be horrible! And then they want you to believe that a brilliant federal judge spotted this and laid down the law and told this tyrant Trump, “You can’t do that!

“I, Judge William Orrick, am not gonna let you be a dictator. I’m not gonna let you be a tyrant. I’m not gonna let you take money from San Francisco. You can’t do it because I said so.” And they want to give the judge an award. None of that has happened. Not a shred of what that narrative is has happened. Trump created an executive order which explicitly says they are going to start enforcing existing law. There is already, ladies and gentlemen, existing law saying that under certain circumstances the federal government may withhold funds.

Under U.S. Code Title VIII, I think. It doesn’t matter what it is. But they can withhold federal funds to sanctuary cities if this cities violate certain aspects of federal law. And all the executive order did is just say (paraphrased), “Hey! We’re gonna start enforcing this.” That’s all that’s happened here. There has been no violation. The Trump administration has not written new law. The Trump administration has not taken a dime away from any sanctuary city. The Trump administration has not yet mobilized to do so. But the judge… Because the objective here is the resistance to Trump, the treatment of Trump as illegitimate and inauthentic.

“He has no authority. He’s an illegitimate president because we don’t like the election outcome. We don’t think it was legitimate, and Trump may be insane!” All of these are factors in these judges essentially saying that Trump cannot take the oath was office. “We can’t believe that he meant it because he lies so much, because he’s so extreme, because he’s so ridiculous. So, yeah, Trump took the oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution. But we Obama-appointed judges, simply don’t accept that.

“Because we think Trump’s a lunatic and doesn’t know what he’s swearing to.” This is, to a degree, what’s really happening here. So in order for the judge to be able to grandstand and make himself a great big hero to the left, he had to create a violation. I am not exaggerating. I am not playing with words. The judge had to invent a violation of the law in order to issue this executive order in such a way that docile, servitude media people could report that the tyrant has once again been stood up to and stopped.

And what is the violation? Well, it’s very simple. The judge theorizes, the judge imagines in his opinion in his ruling, that because San Francisco and Santa Clara — these are two cities mentioned in the suit. They’re in the jurisdiction. And Judge Orrick lives in San Francisco. So he theorizes that because San Francisco and Santa Clara get a lot of federal money, that Trump’s executive order is causing them “preenforcement anxiety.”

In other words, the violation that has occurred here is that Trump’s threat to walk into town and take money away from these cities is making them nervous, and it’s creating something called preenforcement anxiety. And by virtue of calling it preenforcement, the judge is admitting that nothing has happened! So now we’ve got a new disease. We have a new mental disorder: Preenforcement anxiety. Preenforcement anxiety is the nervousness and the fear that cities feel when they think that the federal government might deny them federal money.

And it makes anything they do to make themselves not feel fear and anxiety entirely justified. Trump is not allowed to make them feel feared and anxious. Trump is not permitted to do or say anything that might make them feel uncomfortable. That’s the violation. There isn’t a violation. The judge says — because Trump is proposing such Draconian measures in this executive order — that the people in these communities are feeling unnecessary anxiety and fear, preenforcement, and therefore Trump should be shut down.

The president doesn’t have the authority to make people in San Francisco and Santa Clara feel fearful, nor anxious, nor nervous. And I’m not inventing a single thing here. That is the violation. The violation is root in Trump’s comments on the campaign trail. He scared a lot of people, don’t you know! He scares the Muslims. He told everybody he wanted a nationwide Muslim ban. You didn’t want any refugees from any Muslim countries. And he doesn’t like Mexicans, and he’s gonna send them all home, and he doesn’t think they should be here.

All of these things constitute what’s really in the mind of the tyrant, and the tyrant must be stopped! So Judge William Orrick is the latest hero of the left. At the end of all of this — and here is another bit of gospel for you — the judge didn’t stop anything because nothing has happened. The judge can’t stop anything that Trump, in the executive order, says he’s going to do, because Trump and Sessions and the DOJ acknowledge in the executive order, that the steps they take will be consistent with the law.

It’s Title VIII U.S. Code 1373: Sanctuary Jurisdictions. They acknowledge and they reference that law, the administration does. Now, here is what, again, the judge did, in feeding a narrative to media that allowed them to report that Trump was behaving in a dictatorial, tyrannical fashion and that the heroic judge stopped him. Here’s what it says in the executive order. Quote, “The attorney general and the Secretary of Homeland Security in their discretion — and to the extent consistent with the law — shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with Title VIII U.S. Code 1373 are not eligible to receive federal grants.”

All it did was recite the law!

In the judge’s opinion, he asserts that the executive order directs the attorney general and the Homeland Security secretary to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions are not eligible to receive federal grants. That is not stated in the executive order. The judge is who is disingenuous here, not Trump. The judge is who is taking matters outside the law, not Trump. The judge is who is politicizing this, not Trump and not Sessions. When the judge writes that Trump’s executive order tells the attorney general to make sure that sanctuary cities are not eligible to receive federal money, he is lying.

Because that is not what the executive order says.

The executive order makes plain that the only way funds can be denied is to the extent consistent with the law, which is cited. That’s what’s happened here. At the end of the day, Trump can still enforce the law if he wants. He can still deny money to sanctuary cities consistent with the law, and the judge says so in the executive order, in his ruling. So nothing’s changed, other than the perception of what happened. And the perception of what happened is Trump’s a dictator, a tyrant. He’s illegitimate, he’s a fraud, and he just tried to steal all these sanctuary cities’ money.

And a heroic judge has stood up and said, “No, you can’t! Not on my watch.” And the judge is a hero, and Trump is being portrayed as what I just said.

That’s the politics of it.


RUSH: Mr. Snerdley, the Official Program Observer, just said, “You know, what you just said is totally opposite what I heard and saw last night.” I said, “That’s exactly right. Exactly right.” How many of you believed, starting last night when you first heard about this, all during the night, during the day today, how many of you believed that another heroic federal the judge stepped in to stop the tyrant and an executive order that is unconstitutional? (interruption) Oh, they didn’t convey to you that Trump was behaving unconstitutionally, that was not there?

Then what did they convey Trump was doing? What did you think, based on what you saw last night, what did you think Trump was doing? What illegal was Trump doing? They tried to say that Trump was unfairly focusing on sanctuary cities and taking money? They never said it was unconstitutional? I’m glad to hear it ’cause it’s not unconstitutional ’cause there’s nothing new here!

In fact, the bad actor in this whole scenario is the judge. The judge is the guy who makes things up and changes things in order to find a violation that has not occurred. (interruption) Well, okay, the judge killed Trump’s executive order. That’s a good example. That’s what they report. They didn’t kill executive order. The executive order is not necessary. The law was not changed. The executive order was not necessary. Trump didn’t need to do it in order to enable to him to do what he wants to do. The executive order — the judge referenced this — the executive order was, you know, a bunch of chest thumping, “Look at me, I’m Donald Trump, here’s what I’m gonna do,” but it wasn’t anything new. They just said they were gonna enforce existing law.

There’s no way to slap that down. If you’ve got an executive order that just says that the administration’s gonna enforce the law and you’ve got an Obamaite or liberal judge pledge to stop Trump, on what basis do you stop that? So you have to find a violation. The judge has to find, in all of this, a violation. And the judge did. The violation is preenactment anxiety. Because Trump might enforce the law, people in San Francisco and Santa Clara are anxious and nervous that they might lose money. So Trump has to be stopped.

Preenactment anxiety is what the judge cited as the violation. And, of course, leaving out in his review that all the administration is doing here is following existing law.

Here’s Jeff in Summit, New Jersey, as we head to the phones on this. Great to have you, sir. Glad you called. What’s happening?

CALLER: Great job, Rush, as always. Always enjoy listening to you. And I have to agree with Mr. Snerdley. You’re the first one to actually frame it this way. It was reported completely differently yesterday and last night, and thank you for clearing it up.

RUSH: Well, I had a lot of help from Andy McCarthy. I rely on him — and a couple of other people when it comes to matters of constitutional law and so forth. I’m lucky to have good friends who resource things for me. But it’s stunning to me how unique the truth is here and how out of bounds and how outrageous the narrative on this is.

CALLER: Well, you know what else is glaringly absent from all of the reporting, it wasn’t all that long ago, I think it was May or so of 2016, when Obama’s Justice Department, clearly guided by Obama, threatened to pull federal funding from school districts that didn’t comply with his idea of providing transgender bathrooms or allowing students who identified as an opposite gender from using the bedroom of their choice.

RUSH: Great example.

CALLER: In fact, I think when they issued that order or that letter or that directive to school districts, they gave them five or six days to comply, under the direct threat that they would cut hundreds of millions of dollars of federal education funds. And I don’t remember anybody back then claiming preenforcement or preenactment anxiety disorder. They just moved to try to comply with the law.

RUSH: Not only that, there wasn’t a single federal judge, there wasn’t a conservative Republican that sued Obama or tried to stop him in court. We just don’t do that. We just don’t behave that way. We leave it up to the American people to render judgments on these things at election time.

CALLER: Well, I think we also rely on the fact that when we see something that appears to be lawful on its face we assume that it’s going to stand and the person who has the apparent authority to engage in that activity is gonna be allowed to engage in that particular activity, such as the president’s authority here.

RUSH: Right. Well, but what authority did Obama have to threaten school funding if people didn’t recognize what bathroom some people wanted to use on Thursday at 5 p.m.?

CALLER: From my perspective, I’m not sure he had any authority to do that, but as you very correctly pointed out —

RUSH: Yes, he did. You know what grants him the authority? If nobody’s willing to stop him, he’s got the authority.

CALLER: You know, that’s a very interesting point. I remember when I first started working for a living I had a boss who one day came up to me and he said, “I just want you to know something. Authority is never given. It’s taken.”

RUSH: That’s mostly I think true.

CALLER: It is mostly true. You know, I tell you, I have to like this new defense that this judge came up with. Do you think it would be possible, for example, for American citizens when they get a letter from the IRS to invoke this preenactment or preenforcement anxiety disorder and rush to a judge and stop the IRS from any further action?

RUSH: Yeah, I don’t, see — (laughing) — try it! See what happens. Give me a call, let me know what happens. You can be the test case. “I’m sorry, I can’t file my taxes this year. I have preenactment anxiety waiting for the deadline, I can’t function, I can’t function. You’ve gotta stop pressuring me this way. The fact that I might lose my money to you, you can’t do it.” See how far you get with that.

Look, folks, this is a serious thing. It’s a serious thing in terms of what we have been discussing the last couple of weeks about what’s really happening in this country. This is not a political disagreement. This is not a political debate taking place within the confines of our arena of ideas where both sides respect an ultimate authority. We don’t have that. We have one side rejecting all authority except theirs, except themselves, and they are usurping and ignoring when necessary the Constitution in order to do so, the separation of powers, and nobody’s calling ’em on it. I mean, to go to the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court on this is to guarantee that they will prevail.


RUSH: By the way, folks, the law that allows defunding of sanctuary cities, Title 8 U.S. Code 1373 passed in 1996 under Bill Clinton. That’s how old the law is.


RUSH: See? You see? You see right there on CNN, there’s a banner: “Trump lashes out at another federal judge.” That’s how this works. It’s entirely bogus. Trump should be lashing out at the federal judge. Everybody should be lashing out at the federal judge. Everybody ought to be angry at what this federal judge has done.

Greetings, my friends, and welcome. It’s great to have you. Rush Limbaugh, executing assigned duties flawlessly, while serving humanity. The telephone number here if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882.

I just want to remind you, I had to say this lickety-split in a brief amount of seconds as the previous hour closed. Title 8, United States code section 1373, which is the sanctuary city defunding provision, was signed into law on September 30th, 1996. Who was president then? That’s right. William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was president then. That’s how old the law is.

And look, just very briefly to rehash, Trump issued an executive order which did nothing but say that they were going to enforce Title 8 U.S. Code 1373. That’s all the executive order was. The judge had to invent a violation in order to issue a so-called stay. What the judge has done here is tried to get away with stopping a president from implementing existing federal law. And the judge, in his order, just conveniently happened to omit that the executive order mentions that they will only remove funding consistent to the extent of existing federal law.

The judge did not include that in his order of a stay, creating the illusion that Trump was behaving outside the Constitution, doing something nefarious, taking money away from cities that do wonderful things in social services for illegal immigrants and yada yada yada. It is truly outrageous what has happened here and what continues to happen with these liberal judges who are behaving purely and simply as though Trump is not legitimate, Trump has no authority, he in effect is not the president because of whatever. He’s insane, he’s crazy, he’s a maniac, he’s a bigot, the Russians stole the election, whatever.

And again, the judge had to invent a violation, and the violation the judge cites that the Trump executive order is guilty of is preenactment anxiety. San Francisco and Santa Clara are caused unnecessary and undue fear and anxiety simply based on the possibility that Trump might defund them under existing law. No money’s been taken away, no sanctuary city has been defunded, no move to defund has ever happened yet. All the executive order said was that we’re gonna start enforcing the law.

By the way, there has been a salutary effect here, and that is just the threat to enforce the law and the beginning of enforcing the law by ICE and the Border Patrol, there’s a rancher in Texas saying that border crossings — and he watches, he studies — they’re down 90% since Trump became president. Illegal immigration is down simply because Donald Trump has claimed, “If you violate the law and come here illegally, you’re going to be sent back.”

One more thing on this and I’m gonna move on. I just want to remind everybody again that the actions taken by the Trump administration on border enforcement, they do look, by comparison, really harsh. “Wow, ICE rounding up all these guys, sending ’em home. Holy smokes, the Border Patrol and ICE are really moving into gear.” The only thing that has changed in the last eight years is that existing law is being enforced.

The take-away here, my friends, is the reason all of this looks like it’s really over the top is because of how lax our enforcement of the law has been for eight years. There hasn’t been any, or very little. Obama has occasionally deported people and thumped his chest, “Look at me, I’m the deporter-in-chief, look at me, I’m enforcing,” but he hasn’t. He wasn’t doing a thing to stop illegal border crossings. The country was doing diddly-squat. Now that we are, it looks like, “Wow, massive new changes, and I know there hasn’t been a new law. What’s Trump doing?” They want you to think that Trump is a renegade behaving on his own without concern for the law.

Let me clarify one thing. When I said that the procedure here going to the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court is to guarantee that this judge wins, all I meant by that was that the Ninth Circuit is not gonna overturn the judge. If you pursue this legally, then you acknowledge the judge is legit. The judge is who is illegitimate here. The judge is the one playing the games with the law. The judge is one engaging in politics here, not Trump, not Jeff Sessions. The judge is.

And, by the way, this cockamamie stuff of trying to take statements made during a campaign by a candidate and then saying that those represent statements that can be legally considered and enforced before the guy was even president? Every one of these judges that stopped a Trump executive order has relied on that. For example, the first travel ban, there was no blanket ban of Muslims. But the judge in Seattle (imitating judge), “Well, Trump said, Trump said that he wanted to ban all Muslims, and I think as the judge that this is just the first step, so I’m shutting it down.”

But there is has never been presented an executive order or piece of legislation banning Muslims from the United States. Yet the judge, “Well, Trump wants to, he wants to.” And we’re making law out of this? We’re having legal decisions rendered based on these kinds of things?

They’re the ones, folks, that are way over the top here and way out of bounds. They are the ones who are behaving dictatorially and tyrannically, and they are the ones who are threatening the Constitution, not Donald Trump. It was Donald Trump portrayed as a tyrant, as a dictator, Trump was gonna do this or that. So far, it’s the people trying to stop Trump who are exhibiting that kind of extreme behavior.