Document oJgpE1oQ4NXEjE7K1jDQ1VYD

Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Americans for Limited Government [media@limitgov.org] 3/2/2018 2:32:22 PM Abboud, Michael [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=b6f5af791al842fladcc088cbf9ed3ce-Abboud, Mic] Mr. President, you don't win midterm elections without keeping your political base intact Trump needs to persuade the American people that his side is right, and his coalition will grow March 2, 2018 Permission to republish original op-eds and cartoons granted. Mr. President, you don't win midterm elections without keeping your political base intact President Trump coming out in favor of blowing up the federal budget deficit, proposing higher fuel taxes, adopting a "take guns first, due process second" stance, and supporting DACA citizenship amnesty is endangering GOP midterms in 2018. Is Congress really concerned about foreign involvement in U.S. elections? Then get illegal immigrants off the voter rolls Multiple congressional committees and a Special Counsel have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to investigate foreign interference in the 2016 election and have come up with some Facebook memes from Russia. Meanwhile, recent reports from several states indicate there is real foreign influence in U. S. elections being ignored by Congress and the Special Counsel: Illegal immigrants voting. Trump needs to reverse due process attack Americans for Limited Government President Rick: "President Trump's statement that he wants to take away guns first and have due process later flies in the face of basic constitutional principles under the Fifth Amendment. The President knows better than anyone that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and to deny those basic rights is unacceptable under any circumstance. " Vice News: Bernie Sanders colluded -- with the Australian Labor Party While the Russia investigation continues to swirl around President Donald Trump and the members of his entourage, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has confirmed another instance of illegal meddling in the election: Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign illegally accepted contributions from the Australian Labor Party, which paid for volunteers to fly across the globe to volunteer on his campaign, according to a ruling filed earlier this month. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00005072-00001 Mr, President you don't win midterm elections without keeping your political base intact By Robert Romano "To go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you're saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second." That was President Donald Trump at the White House on Feb. 28, outlining a proposal to skip going to court when determining if an individual, deemed mentally ill in some other capacity, is denied access to firearms purchases. Let's leave aside the politics for a moment, which are perilous for the President's party, the Republicans, in November. For those left scratching their heads wondering who would deem a person, legally, mentally ill such that that person would then be added to the FBI's federal gun database barring gun purchases, without due process and court involvement, you're not the only one. Not only does the Fifth Amendment state that no person can be denied liberty without due process of law, including all of the rights stipulated in the Bill of Rights, which includes the Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms, if a court is not to be the venue to adjudicate some form of mental incapacity, what other would there be? Local police perhaps? Certainly there are sheriffs across the country responsible for blocking gun licenses on far more arbitrary grounds. But even there, they'd hardly be qualified to issue a mental health diagnosis. Doctors, then? If medical records, particularly mental health records, were no longer legally confidential, and subjected to federal databases -- which might not be secure -- there would be a perverse incentive for those mentally ill to not seek treatment, for fear of being discriminated against, not only on gun purchases, but also professionally and personally if the information were to get out Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00005072-00002 into the open. The doctors themselves might not wish to divulge the information to keep their patients' confidence -- and business. The fact is, without a violent or felonious criminal background, a mere trip the psychiatrist's office or even an anti-depressant prescription will most likely never be a disqualifying criterium for purchasing a firearm. In the case of Nikolas Cruz in Broward County, Florida, if he had been arrested and convicted all the times the cops were called on him, he might have been disqualified from firearms purchases under existing law and received necessary interventions that could have prevented his bloody rampage. So, it is hard to see how practical the President's proposal really is. Compelling doctors to furnish medical records of individuals who have not committed a crime to federal authorities is going to be a really tough sell, not just in Congress, but in the courts. And then there's the politics. Trump ran on a platform where he promised to protect law-abiding gun owners from just this sort of end-run around the Fifth Amendment and due process protections. He signed a law that repealed an Obama era regulation that did much the same for individuals with certain mental disorders who had collected disability and required assistance in applying for it. Gun-owners were a significant part of the coalition that elected Trump in the first place. And in 2018, if they stay home -- as they are most likely to do if anything resembling what he spoke of passes -- Republicans run a significant risk of being politically devastated in the midterms. Why? These proposals dispirit the President's Republican base. They are a form of voter suppression. Midterms are already fraught with peril for presidents. Incumbent parties rarely win them. One thing's for certain, though, you don't win midterm elections by suppressing your own vote. Which is potentially what Trump is doing here. Adding fuel to the fire, Trump has just signed a budget deal that significantly increases both defense and non-defense spending by $296 billion over the next two years. This could result in a $1 trillion deficit being reported when the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30, right in time for the midterm elections. Fiscal conservatives, already disappointed with the $20 trillion deficit, have little to support with the debt once again exploding, with Republicans in charge. Again, all that is needed for Democrats to do extremely well in November is for their turnout to be up and Republican turnout to be depressed. Then there is President Trump's call to increase the federal gasoline tax from 18.4 cents a gallon to reportedly 43.4 cents a gallon, the largest gas tax increase in American history since 1983. This is said to almost completely offset the tax cuts for average Americans that just got enacted into law and come at a time when fuel prices are once again starting to rise. Trump ran on tax cuts, and so supporters will rightly be disappointed and maybe even dismayed by this new development. Finally, there is the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, which Trump is now embracing via legislation and is even willing to grant citizenship to not only the 800,000 who were part of the program, but another million who were eligible but did not participate. He spoke about it prominently in the State of the Union Address. Trump ran against DACA, and while he has supported such a deal in exchange for an end to chain migration, the visa lottery and building the wall, no such proposal has passed Congress. Put together, this could be a recipe for electoral disaster in November. This could be a wave election. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00005072-00003 To offset losses among conservatives in the coalition, Republicans will have to pick up votes elsewhere, but that will be difficult, since Democrats are already all fired up to vote in November after losing the House, Senate and White House in 2016. It is possible that less conservative Republicans will turn out to vote in exchange for conservatives who stay home, but to win Trump and the GOP Congress really need both to turn out. Or that by going to the left, somehow Republicans pick up Democrats. But that is far less likely. Acrimonious losses politically in midterms also can portend badly for presidential reelections should they engender a significant primary challenge. By exposing his flank, President Trump could face a primary challenge from the right in 2020, weakening his chances of being reelected, and endangering the entire enterprise. That is why Trump needs to reverse course. You don't win midterms by ceding ground to the other side. Historically, you win them by getting the other side to cede ground to you. That's what Republicans did in 2002 when they picked up seats with Democrats supporting the Iraq War. That's how Franklin Roosevelt did it in 1934. Republicans voted for New Deal programs to "save" themselves -- more Republicans voted for the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 than against -- and were nearly brought to political extinction in 1934. Presidents, few and far in between, who overcome the midterm jinx -- where the White House incumbent party tends to lose House seats in midterm elections 89 percent of the time dating back a century, with losses averaging 35 seats, and tend to lose Senate seats about 71 percent of the time, with losses averaging about 6 seats -- do so by making serious inroads and changing public opinion on an issue or issues, compelling the other side to cave. Trump, so far, appears to be doing the opposite. His approach has helped unify Democrats, and splinter Republicans. Not all is doom and gloom, of course. The President's tax cut plan is popular. And conservatives do have a lot to cheer in the areas of deregulation. Trump left the economy-killing Paris Climate accord. Trump got Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and other constitutionalists onto lower federal courts. More broadly, the President's electoral coalition in the rust belt that supported his trade policies, Republican and Democrat alike, should be cheered by the scrapping of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the renegotiation of NAFTA. On balance, the President has a pretty conservative record in terms of the things he has actually done. But that could change. In other words, although there is cause for concern, it is not too late for Trump to flip the script on the midterms. But the way he will do that is by keeping his side united, and forcing the other side to move in his direction. With the House, Senate and White House, he has the advantage to set the agenda in Congress. He needs to do that this year. Considering the longer odds against picking up seats in the midterms, he could benefit by being more aggressive to get more conservative policy wins out of Congress. The upcoming omnibus spending bill could provide such an opportunity to achieve major policy objectives like the southern border wall he ran on. Force the other side to defund Planned Parenthood. Make them take a tough vote on trade policy. Stuff like that. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00005072-00004 In the meantime, the President needs to assure his supporters concerned about his stances on guns and immigration that he is not capitulating. At the end of the day, they will remember what he did more so than what he has said. But once he has a record and signs bills into law, those are set in stone. To succeed this year and moving forward, President Trump needs to keep his political base intact -- and add to it. Trump needs to persuade the American people that his side is right, and his coalition will grow. He will not accomplish that by telling his side that they are wrong. Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government. Is Congress really concerned about foreign involvement in U.S. elections? Then get Illegal Immigrants off the voter rolls. L 111M 5 C/O Legal Insurrection By Printus LeBlanc Multiple congressional committees and a Special Counsel have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to investigate foreign interference in the 2016 election and have come up with some memes from Russia. Meanwhile, recent reports from several states indicate there is real foreign influence in U.S. elections being ignored by Congress and the Special Counsel. Voter fraud is a far more significant threat to our democracy than $300 in Facebook ads for Pennsylvania, and it is time for Congress, the Department of Justice, and the Special Counsel to go after the real foreign influence. On Monday, the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PLIF) filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania officials for failing to comply with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The PLIF is seeking records related to registered voters for inspection, which the NVRA makes legal. The foundation is seeking Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00005072-00005 the information to ensure the Pennsylvania voter rolls are clean and have good reason to think otherwise. In December, Philadelphia Election Commissioner Al Schmidt told state lawmakers there was a glitch in the state's motor voter system. Schmidt also told the lawmakers that after the Pennsylvania Department of State completed the Noncitizen Matching Analysis more than 100,000 driver's license numbers associated with noncitizens are a match voter registration records. The lawsuit identified eight examples of noncitizens voting. One of the more rampant instances of voter fraud was Othman Alamoudi. He registered to vote in Allegheny County and 2005 and was taken off the rolls in 2012 after it was discovered he was a noncitizen. Alamoudi registered again in 2014 and 2016, voting in both elections. He is still on the voter rolls despite being a noncitizen and illegally voting in elections. Why have charges not been brought against Alamoudi? Why have deportation proceedings not begun against Alamoudi? In Matter of Margarita Del Pilar Fitzpatrick it was ruled, "An alien who has voted in an election involving candidates for Federal office in violation of 18 U.S.C. 611(a) (2012) is removable under section 237(a)(6)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(6)(A) (2012), regardless of whether the alien knew that he or she was committing an unlawful act by voting." It seems like the law is pretty straightforward on the matter. As if Pennsylvania not wanting to investigate the possible 100,000 noncitizen voters on its rolls wasn't asinine enough, the city of Chicago is moving to register noncitizens to vote. The crime-ridden city unveiled a new ID card called "CityKey." Everyone in Chicago is eligible for the new ID, including illegal immigrants. The troubling issue is the ID does not indicate citizenship. This will give noncitizens in Chicago the ability to register to vote, because under Illinois law a person doesn't need to prove citizenship to vote, only provide an ID card, and check a box stating "Yes, I am a citizen." Anyone with knowledge of Illinois voter history has every right to be frightened by this recent action. The state has a long history of dead people voting, now it appears it is trying to get noncitizens to vote next to zombies. Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning stated, "Voter integrity is important to ensure that people accept election results. The willful inclusion of illegal votes undermines the democratic system and needs to be prevented by the federal government." If the leaders of these lawless communities are encouraging and allowing noncitizens to vote, why should the votes of those communities pollute the votes of the rest of the U.S.? Furthermore, if the mainstream media, Congress, and Robert Mueller are looking for foreign influence in U S. elections, they should start at the place where noncitizens actually influence elections, the ballot box. Printus LeBlanc is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government. Trump needs to reverse due process attack Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00005072-00006 Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning issued the following statement responding to President Donald Trump's statement that he favored an approach to "take the guns first, go through due process second": "President Trump's statement that he wants to take away guns first and have due process later flies in the face of basic constitutional principles under the Fifth Amendment. The President knows better than anyone that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and to deny those basic rights is unacceptable under any circumstance. If he pursues legislation that tramples on due process, he will have cast aside constitutional protection of basic liberties in favor of perceived political expediency. "The mental health issue is extremely challenging from a legal perspective, but one thing is clear, if the laws in place had been followed in Broward County, Florida, Nikolas Cruz would have received intervention that would have prevented this tragedy either for being adjudicated mentally incompetent, as the Gun Control Act of 1968 provides for, or being prosecuted for making terrorist threats. "The great danger of President Trump's confiscate first, ask questions later proposal is that it presumes that the possessor or potential purchaser of a firearm is mentally unstable and should be subjected to thousands upon thousands of dollars of legal fees, allowing simple allegations to be weaponized. This is why no person may be denied liberty without due process. To prevent this very thing from happening. "When President Trump tries to figure out who's right on this issue, he should look closely at those applauding him who have wished his political demise and wonder why. Without due process, and the presumption of innocence, the U S. Constitution might as well be lit on fire because it would be worth less than the paper it was printed on." Click here for the full press release. ALG Editor's Note: In the following piece from Vice News, Alex Lubben details the efforts of collusion between Bernie Sanders and the Australian Labor Party: CES^News Bernie Sanders colluded -- with the Australian Labor Party By Alex Lubben Between Bernie Sanders and the Australians, there was collusion. While the Russia investigation continues to swirl around President Donald Trump and the members of his entourage, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has confirmed another instance of illegal meddling in the election: Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign illegally accepted contributions from the Australian Labor Party, which paid for volunteers to fly across the globe to volunteer on his campaign, according to a ruling filed earlier this month. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00005072-00007 The volunteers, who were participating in a government-funded education program, even got $8,000 in stipends from their native country to campaign for the popular Vermont senator in his 2016 run for the White House. The FEC ruled that the Sanders campaign accepted about $25,000 in in-kind donations from the Australians. Bernie's been ordered to fork over $14,500 in civil penalties for violating campaign law. Sanders' campaign staffers told the FEC they knew that some of the Australian volunteers were getting stipends, but they thought -- "mistakenly," the FEC has pointed out in their ruling -- that the volunteers were doing legal work. After initially pushing back against the FEC, the Sanders campaign has agreed to pay up. A campaign spokesperson told VICE News that the campaign accepted the fine to avoid an expensive legal fight with the FEC but noted that it did not admit to any wrongdoing. "During the course of the campaign, thousands and thousands of young people from every state and many other countries volunteered. Among them were seven Australian young people who were receiving a modest stipend and airfare from the Australian Labor Party so they could learn about American politics," the spokesperson said. "The folks on the campaign managing volunteers did not believe the stipend disqualified them from being volunteers. William O'Brien, the Republican former New Hampshire House speaker, filed the complaint with the FEC that led to the fine, according to local radio station WMUV, which first reported on the ruling. O'Brien had seen a video, filmed by Project Veritas, of Australians pulling up yard signs during the campaign. As it turns out, O'Brien's hunch was right. Click here for the full story. Subscribe in a reader Americansfor Limited Government 10332 Main Street # 326None Fairfax Virginia 22030 United States This email is intended for abboud.michael@epa.gov. Update your preferences or Unsubscribe Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 7 ED 002061 00005072-00008