Ayaan Hirsi Ali begins her commentary with these words: “I was a Muslim refugee once. I know what it’s like.” She was en route to Canada to consummate a marriage arranged against her will by her father. At the Frankfurt Airport, she fled to the Netherlands. There she learned Dutch and received a master’s degree in political science before coming to America.

She has worked as an interpreter for abused Muslim women and understands the Muslim refugee experience. In the course of working with Muslim communities, she has found four different types of Muslim immigrant: adapters, menaces, coasters, and fanatics.

“Many Muslim immigrants have adapted over time by adopting the core values of Western democracies.” These Muslims have become great U.S. citizens and are the type of people we want to welcome to our country.

The second group are mostly young men, who she says are menaces in their homes and outside in public. They have been subjected to domestic violence and go on to commit it themselves.

Coasters are a third group of Muslim immigrants. They usually have little or no formal education and thankfully accept welfare and live off it. They also invite their families from abroad to join them on the welfare rolls.

“Finally, there are the fanatics—those use the freedom of the countries that gave them sanctuary to spread an uncompromising practice of Islam.” These immigrants are certainly the group we want to keep out of America.

Her analysis of Muslim immigrants is necessary for our discussion of immigration. We just cannot assume that all Muslim immigrants will perfectly adapt to the American culture and adopt western values. Nor should we assume that all Muslims are fanatics. We need to find a way to welcome adapters but also exclude those who won’t contribute to this country.

When a new president is elected, he inherits an executive branch that is stocked with government workers from the previous administration. Sometimes the transition is very smooth. Think of the transition from Ronald Reagan to George H.W. Bush. Sometimes the transition is rough. That is what Donald Trump is experiencing.

An article in the Washington Post described how federal workers are resisting the executive actions by President Trump and looking for ways to push back against his agenda. It explains how “federal workers are in regular consultation with recently departed Obama-era political appointees about what they can do to push back against the new president’s initiatives.”

It goes on to tell about some in the federal government who “have set up social media accounts to anonymously leak word of changes that Trump appointees are trying to make.” At one church near Washington, D.C. “dozens of federal workers attended a support group for civil servants seeking a forum to discuss their opposition to the Trump administration.”

The federal bureaucracy and the civil service system are supposed to be nonpartisan so that employees are removed from politics and various partisan perspectives. But this time these federal employees seem determined to undermine the initiatives that President Trump wants to put forward. The federal bureaucracy seems stacked against him.

The Hill newspaper covers the presidency and Congress. Their analysis last fall found that 95 percent of campaign donations from employees at 14 federal agencies went to Hillary Clinton. That probably explains why we are seeing lots of signs of resistance, from grumbling to angry opposition and even online posts that promise insubordination to new policies.

Each day it is becoming clearer that President Trump will be facing lots of resistance to his policies within his own federal bureaucracy.

Today is Valentine’s Day. Traditionally in this country, it has been a day for cards, candy, and flowers. I think it would surprise most people to know that Valentine’s Day is rooted in church history and not an invention of greeting card companies.

Pope Gelasius designated February 14 as a day to celebrate the life of St. Valentine. Actually there were at least three men who were named Valentine that have been tied to this day.

During the reign of the Roman Emperor Claudius, Valentine was imprisoned for performing weddings for soldiers, who were forbidden from marrying because Claudius believed that unmarried men made better soldiers. One tradition says that he healed the daughter of his jailer. Before his execution, he wrote her a note that said “from your Valentine.”

On February 14, there was a Roman festival based on the Roman goddess of marriage, childbirth, and sexuality. Some claim that the church may have decided to place the St. Valentine’s feast day in the middle of February to “Christianize” the pagan festival. That is likely how St. Valentine’s life came to be associated with love and romance.

During the Middle Ages, Geoffrey Chaucer and others emphasized the idea of courtly love. By the 15th century, the idea of Valentine’s Day changed into an occasion in which lovers would express their love for one another by giving the cards, candy, and flowers we give to each other today. Those cards came to be known as “valentines.”

The oldest known valentine still exists. It was a poem written in 1415 by Charles, Duke of Orleans, to his wife while he was imprisoned in the Tower of London. Other “valentines” were sent in the following centuries.

Sending and giving valentines today is big business. More cards are sent on Valentine’s Day than any other holiday except Christmas. I hope, now that you know some of the history, you won’t forget that this day was named for a Christian saint centuries ago.

The free speech movement on the University of California campus began more than 50 years ago. I remember it because, as a youngster, I attended a church in Berkeley very near where it was taking place. So I thought it was indeed ironic that a raging mob forced the university to shut down a scheduled speaking event.

It is not unusual these days to cancel a speaker, especially if he or she is a conservative. Years ago, Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick was heckled at one speech and had to cancel another one. Condoleezza Rice was canceled at Rutgers. Dr. Ben Carson was forced to withdraw as a speaker at the graduation ceremonies for Johns Hopkins. The list goes on and on.

What made the Berkeley incident significant were the riots and the reaction. We aren’t used to seeing riots on campus over a speaker. There is a good reason for that. Most speakers would back down rather than risk the possibility that a “peaceful protest” might quickly become violent.

David French in a recent column also explains that the Berkeley riot has something in common with other riots. Black-clad thugs (know as the “black bloc”) were attacking people and destroying property. After they attack, they melt back into a crowd that quickly closes behind them.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who is also a professor at the university, blamed the Berkeley riot on outside agitators who were right wing. I guess, he was half correct. Many of the agitators probably weren’t students, but they certainly were not right wing agitators.

Also of concern were the rather meek reactions from the mayor of Berkeley and California’s Lieutenant Governor. The title of David French’s column is: “If We Can’t Unite Against Rioting, We Can’t Unite at All.”

I would hope that all of us would agree that rioting to stop free speech is wrong. Nothing justifies the violence that took place. Apparently, that is asking too much from some elected officials.

Shortly after the “Women’s March on Washington,” Dr. Steve Turley wrote about the “feminist futility” of the march and its major policy initiatives. Feminists and LGBT activists have been pushing programs and policies that almost guarantee that future feminists and activists will be smaller in number. It all comes down to what I have written about in the past: the fertility gap.

Steve Turley cited a recent demographic study done by a professor at the University of London. He points to a significant demographic deficit between secularists and conservative religionists. In the U.S., self-identified secular women averaged only 1.5 children per couple. By contrast, conservative evangelical women averaged 2 to 3 children per couple. That is a fertility gap of 28 percent.

There are many reasons why this is happening, and they go back to feminism in general and the “Women’s March” in particular. Feminists focus on women’s freedom and relegate motherhood to merely a lifestyle choice. Secular women are more likely to abort, so they are less likely to have as many children as evangelical women.

To put it another way, inherent in the message of feminism and secularism is perspective that essentially guarantees its demise. Conservative women have more children the liberal women. Religious women have more children than secular women.

The only factor that alters that demographic difference is the conversion of children raised in religious homes into secularists. Unfortunately, the colleges have done a fair job of doing that. But that doesn’t change the reality that the message of feminism can be self-destructive.

The latest confirmation hearings for cabinet secretaries and a future confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court nominee illustrate why the Senate needs to reform the filibuster. Representative Tom McClintock explains how to do this in the January issue of Imprimis.

The framers intended that the Senate would be a deliberative body where legislation would be debated with great care. Unfortunately, the Senate rules now allow a smaller minority to stop just about any legislation or confirmation. Back in 1917, the Senate adopted a cloture rule that could end debate by a two-thirds vote, which was later changed to three-fifths. Even with this new rule, filibusters were rare: barely one per year.

The big change occurred in 1970. There have been more than 1,700 filibusters in the last 46 years. Why? Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield instituted a “two-track” system that allows the Senate to bypass a filibustered bill and go on to another. This relieved senators from having to talk through the night. No longer did senators have to talk about the bill, they merely had to find 40 senators who would not invoke cloture. They didn’t have to even debate the merits or deficits of a bill or a cabinet officer or a judicial candidate.

Today the U.S. Senate is where bills passed by the House of Representatives go to die. That is why the previous president talked about “his pen and his phone.” That is why this president is signing executive orders. It also why we have so much legislative gridlock, brought about by a minority of U.S. senators.

The Constitution requires a supermajority for constitutional amendments, impeachment, and overriding a veto. It should not apply to passing legislation or confirming people to the cabinet or federal judiciary. It is time to reform the filibuster.

Critics of President Donald Trump’s wall say that is it too expensive. I think this criticism provides a great opportunity to remind people how much money the federal government spends. So let’s take a moment and look at what such a wall might cost and compare it to other items in the federal budget.

When I was on the radio the other day, I reminded my audience that the federal budget last year was $3.8 trillion. If you divide that amount by the 365 days in the year, you find that each day the federal government spends about $10.4 billion. Some have estimated that the wall President Trump is proposing might cost about $12-15 billion, which will probably be spread out over 2-3 years. The total cost of the wall over that period of time equals about a day and a half of federal operating cost.

Jeff Poor wrote a column recently about questionable federal government expenditures that exceed Trump’s wall. A Government Accountability Office report estimated in 2014 that the federal government made $59.9 billion in improper Medicare payments and $17.5 billion in improper Medicaid payments. The total of $76.4 billion would be roughly the cost of five border walls.

The Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter jet project costs an estimated $379 billion. That would be roughly the cost of 25 border walls. You might remember that Donald Trump criticized the cost of the project and the cost overruns. Now perhaps you can see why.

The earned-income-tax-credit provides $69 billion in benefits to 28 million households. And while we are talking about poverty, consider the cost of the more than 50 year “War on Poverty.” Taxpayers have footed $22 trillion bill, which would be 1,466 border walls.

Once you put the cost of a wall in context, I hope you can see that it wouldn’t even be one of the largest expenses in the federal government.

The battle over every Supreme Court nominee illustrates how the court has become more powerful and influential than the framers ever envisioned. Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, concluded that the judiciary would probably be the least dangerous branch of government. His reasons were simple. The court lacked “the power of the executive branch and the political passions of the legislature.”

The high court has much more power and is deciding more cases than the framers would have predicted. That is why every Supreme Court nominee is heavily scrutinized.

Not only is much at stake, but also predicting how a nominee will rule in the future has been difficult, especially for Republicans. Marc Thiessen reminds us that Democratic presidents have appointed four justices (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor) who have all remained consistently liberal. By contrast, Republican presidents have picked seven justices (Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts). He says, “more than half have defected to vote with the court’s liberal bloc on critical issues. Democrats have a perfect record, while Republicans are not even batting 500.”

We will probably see an additional battle over a Supreme Court nominee in the near future. Ruth Bader Ginsburg turns 84 in March. Anthony Kennedy is 80. Stephen Breyer is 78. Although the confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch will be controversial enough, the battle to replace a second Supreme Court justice could generate even more fireworks. Both sides understand what is at stake by confirming a justice for a lifetime appointment to the high court.

I encourage you to watch the hearings and to pray for the senators who, according to the Constitution, must provide “advice and consent” to the appointments made by the president.

A week ago on radio we started talking about an article that is accurately described as a regulatory game changer. In the article, Kimberley Strassel described a meeting many attorneys had with Todd Gaziano, who is a senior fellow in constitutional law at the Pacific Legal Foundation. In the meeting, he explained to the lawyers how they (and the current president) could use a bill known as the Congressional Review Act.

This law can be used to roll back regulations that members of Congress believe exceeds the authority of the federal bureaucracy. Most in the room believed that the law could modify or remove regulations passed in the last 60 legislative days. That means that Congress could address some of the controversial regulations formulated in the last few months of the Obama administration.

Todd Gaziano told everyone at the meeting that the law grants members of Congress much greater powers than they had been led to believe. The law requires any federal agency promulgating a rule to submit a “report” on it to the House and Senate. The 60-day clock only starts when the rule is published or when Congress received the report, whichever comes later.

Here’s where we are right now. These federal bureaucracies often neglect sending in these reports. That means that there are federal regulations, possibly going back as far as the Clinton administration that could be changed or removed by Congress. Perhaps now you can see why this is called a game changer.

By the way, this law also applies to “guidance” issued by federal agencies. For example, the Obama administration issued controversial guidance rules concerning transgender bathrooms based on a bureaucrat’s bizarre interpretation of Title IX.

It is possible that the Trump administration could order these federal agencies to make a list of regulations or guidance that have been issued without a report. Once they file the report, Congress could vote them up or down. Yes, this latest revelation is certainly a game changer.