NYPD Boss Jailed for 28 Years in Elite Pedophile Ring Sting

It truly is disgusting to see how many pedophiles hold high positions in our society. And for too long, they have been doing more than just getting away with it, they have been abusing their positions of power to exploit even more children. Well, that’s about to change, and the Trump administration’s often-unreported crackdown against pedophile rings continues. Their latest capture is former NYPD department boss Alberto Randazzo.

In the following video, Right Wing News looks at the crimes committed by Randazzo, which includes persuading mothers to sexually abuse their children for his own sick viewing pleasure. This is horrifying, but compared to the elite pedophiles infesting DC, this guy is a small fry. How many more pedophiles are hiding in positions of power?

Your News Wire reports:

Alberto Randazzo, a former New York City Police Department boss, was sentenced to 28 years in prison for sexual exploitation of children and receipt of child pornography, as the Trump administration’s investigation into the elite pedophile ring that has infiltrated politics and law enforcement nationwide continues taking down high-profile perpetrators.

Randazzo was caught targeting mothers, persuading them to sexually abuse their children and send him pictures and videos of the acts. (Read more from “NYPD Boss Jailed for 28 Years in Elite Pedophile Ring Sting” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Cyber Attack Fears as MULTIPLE CITIES HIT With Simultaneous Power Grid Failures

The U.S. power grid appears to have been hit with multiple power outages affecting San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles.

Officials report that business, traffic and day-to-day life has come to a standstill in San Francisco, reportedly the worst hit of the three major cities currently experiencing outages.

Power companies in all three regions have yet to elaborate on the cause, though a fire at a substation was the original reason given by San Francisco officials.

A series of subsequent power outages in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York City left commuters stranded and traffic backed up on Friday morning. Although the outages occurred around the same time, there is as of yet no evidence that they were connected by anything more than coincidence.

The first outage occurred at around 7:20 a.m. in New York, when the power went down at the 7th Avenue and 53rd Street subway station, which sent a shockwave of significant delays out from the hub and into the rest of the subway system. By 11:30 a.m. the city’s MTA confirmed that generators were running again in the station, although the New York subways were set to run delayed into the afternoon.

Later in the morning, power outages were reported in Los Angeles International Airport, as well as in several other areas around the city.

Via : Inverse

The San Francisco Fire Department was responding to more than 100 calls for service in the Financial District and beyond, including 20 elevators with people stuck inside, but reported no immediate injuries. Everywhere, sirens blared as engines maneuvered along streets jammed with traffic.

Traffic lights were out at scores of intersections, and cars were backing up on downtown streets as drivers grew frustrated and honked at each other.

Via: SF Gate

The cause of the outage has not yet been made clear, though given the current geo-political climate it is not out of the question to suggest a cyber attack could be to blame. It has also been suggested that the current outages could be the result of a secretive nuclear/EMP drill by the federal government.

As we have previously reported, the entire national power grid has been mapped by adversaries of the United States and it is believed that sleep trojans or malware may exist within the computer systems that maintain the grid.

In a 2016 report it was noted that our entire way of life has been left vulnerable to saboteurs who could cause cascading blackouts across the United States for days or weeks at a time:

It isn’t just EMPs and natural disaster that poses a threat to the grid, but there is also the potential for attacks on individual power substations in the vast network of decentralized and largely unguarded power grid chain. A U.S. government study established that there would be “major, extended blackouts if more than three key substations were destroyed.”

Whether by criminals, looters, terrorists, gangs or pranksters, it would take very little to bring down the present system, and there is currently very little the system can do to protect against this wide open threat.

Whether the current outages are the result of a targeted infrastructure cyber attack or simply a coincidence, most Americans think the impossible can’t happen, as The Prepper’s Blueprint author Tess Pennington highlights, a grid-down scenario won’t just be a minor inconvenience if it goes on for more than a day or two:

Consider, for a moment, how drastically your life would change without the continuous flow of energy the grid delivers. While manageable during a short-term disaster, losing access to the following critical elements of our just-in-time society would wreak havoc on the system.

Challenges or shut downs of business commerce

Breakdown of our basic infrastructure: communications, mass transportation, supply chains

Inability to access money via atm machines

Payroll service interruptions

Interruptions in public facilities – schools, workplaces may close, and public gatherings.

Inability to have access to clean drinking water

Full report: When the Grid Goes Down, You Better Be Ready!

It is for this reason that we have long encouraged Americans to prepare for this potentially devastating scenario by considering emergency food reserves, clean water reserves and even home defense strategies in the event of a widespread outage.

The majority of Americans have about 3 days worth of food in their pantry.

Imagine for a moment what Day 4 might look like in any major city that goes dark.

This exclusive clip from American Blackout shows what an extended outage might look like:

Prepare for the worst, because this is one scenario you do not want to face. (For more from the author of “Cyber Attack Fears as MULTIPLE CITIES HIT With Simultaneous Power Grid Failures” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


America’s ‘Known Wolf’ Jihadist Problem: Why Haven’t We Learned From Our Mistakes?

One of the more disturbing and dangerous trends in American national security is the proliferation of “known wolves” — jihadists who are able to commit terrorist attacks against our homeland in spite of the fact that they are on law enforcement’s radar.

This issue is becoming so commonplace that literally in the midst of drafting this piece, news broke of one such potential figure. Kori Ali Muhammad murdered three innocents in Fresno, California during a rampage in which he reportedly screamed “Allahu akbar.” In spite of authorities characterizing his attack as a hate crime rather than terrorism, Muhammad certainly appears to have been a “known wolf”, with local news sources reporting not only a criminal background but a history of “making terrorist threats.”

More chilling were the revelations detailed in a recent episode of 60 Minutes concerning the would-be terrorists known to the FBI who attempted to shoot up the 2015 “Draw Muhammad” cartoon event held in Garland, Texas. The show’s investigators found that an undercover FBI agent working with the pair of jihadists had urged one of them to “Tear up Texas,” and was in an automobile directly behind them in the moments leading up to their failed attack. Maddeningly, the agent apparently did not attempt to intervene and prevent the potential massacre.

But perhaps the most infamous known wolf of all is Anwar al-Awlaki. Awlaki was an American citizen who would become one of the leading jihadist clerics and al-Qaeda recruiters in the world before being assassinated via drone in Yemen in 2011.

Awlaki’s name has surfaced in connection with a FOIA lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch of great importance and relevance as a new administration grapples with how to defend America from the jihadists within.

Judicial Watch filed suit against the FBI in order to force the agency to produce records relating to its investigation of Awlaki, given his confirmed connection to several 9/11 hijackers.

Fox News recently released images captured by the FBI stemming from this investigation that show Awlaki being surveilled on the same day in February of 2002 as he spoke at a conference at the Pentagon on “Islam and Middle Eastern Politics and Culture.”

The fact that Awlaki — who was interviewed by the FBI at least four times in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks due to his known ties to three of the hijackers — was invited to speak at a Department of Defense luncheon intended to serve as a forum for Muslim outreach alone is unsettling.

But the story gets worse:

The FBI documents confirm the imam was under bureau surveillance as part of the “IT UBL/Al-Qaeda” investigation, but the information was not shared with the Defense Department’s Office of General Counsel, which sponsored the 2002 Pentagon lunch.

The high-level FBI surveillance – including specialized teams, as well as video and photos – also calls into question the bureau’s explanation regarding a decision eight months later, in October 2002, by FBI agent Wade Ammerman. While Awlaki was held by Customs officers at JFK airport because of an outstanding warrant for the cleric’s arrest from the Joint Terrorism Task Force in San Diego, Ammerman told Customs to release him. The FBI has maintained Ammerman’s actions were routine.

Meanwhile, the FBI has been reluctant to divulge details of the Awlaki investigation.

As the Fox News report notes:

The FBI first released blurry ‘Xerox’ copies in 2013 of the photos with poor resolution. Chris Farrell, director of Judicial Watch investigations, said they sued the bureau for more because Awlaki had confirmed contact with the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego and Virginia.

“The FBI continues to obstruct and delay the production of records concerning their investigation of the dead terrorist spiritual leader of the 9/11 hijackers –Anwar Awlaki,” Farrell said…

Farrell said the FBI released screen grabs but refused to release the surveillance videos. “Almost 16 years later [after 9/11 attacks], how are the interests of the American public served by the FBI’s legal gamesmanship and excessive redactions?” he said.

This is a valid question that Congress ought to take up in earnest.

The American people also deserve to know the answers to several other pertinent questions:

How is it that an individual could be investigated for terrorist links at the same time he was invited to speak to U.S. government defense officials in an outreach capacity?

Can the FBI report of any other analogous instances in which this has occurred?

What steps has the FBI taken to ensure that figures like Awlaki under FBI investigation are not actively consulting with U.S. government authorities, whether formally or informally?

In outreach efforts under the government’s countering violent extremism paradigm, is the FBI contacted to ensure that partners have been vetted for terrorist ties and are not the subject of current or past investigation, a la Awlaki?

Does the FBI believe it committed any additional errors in connection with its handling of its investigation of Awlaki? If so, what are they, and what measures has the FBI taken to ensure they will never be made in the future?

In formal remarks delivered by DHS Secretary John Kelly on April 18 on threats facing America, Sec. Kelly devoted substantial space to the issue of “Homegrown Terrorism,” which includes known wolves like Awlaki.

If we do not have an open and honest accounting of past failures on this count, we cannot hope to correct them in the future.

Given the great damage inflicted by the countering violent extremism project —- whereby the U.S. government outsourced its counterjihadist policies to the very Muslim Brotherhood-aligned groups responsible for purging the materials and figures best-equipped to orient our policies towards the Islamic supremacist threat (some groups of which may directly constitute the threat themselves) — time is of the essence if we are to change course and keep the homeland safe. (For more from the author of “America’s ‘Known Wolf’ Jihadist Problem: Why Haven’t We Learned From Our Mistakes?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Manama Dialogue

Mattis: Syria Still Has Chemical Weapons

Syria still possesses chemical weapons, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said in Israel on Friday, warning against the banned munitions being used again.

At a news conference in Tel Aviv, Mattis also said that in recent days the Syrian Air Force has dispersed its combat aircraft. The implication is that Syria may be concerned about additional U.S. strikes following the cruise missile attack earlier this month in retaliation for alleged Syrian use of sarin gas.

Mattis spoke alongside Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman. “There can be no doubt in the international community’s mind that Syria has retained chemical weapons in violation of its agreement and its statement that it had removed them all,” said Mattis. He said he didn’t want to elaborate on the amounts Syria has in order to avoid revealing sources of intelligence. (Read more from “Mattis: Syria Still Has Chemical Weapons” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Repeat After Me (or Lose Your Job): ‘White Men Are Not Being Persecuted. And They Deserve It.’

I wrote a few days ago that the Alt-Right movement is a neopagan error. It’s an “angry, inchoate reaction to a powerful, slippery heresy that preens as a winsome angel of light.” That heresy is multiculturalism, which boasts of its double standards and targets white males as villains. But how powerful is that movement, really? Was I exaggerating for effect?

No. If anything, I understated things. White men are demonized and scapegoated for nearly every evil. Highly educated people feel perfectly comfortable, even proud of themselves for doing so. It’s part of the ritual exorcism practiced by the church of multiculturalism:

“Do you renounce white males?”

“I do.”

“And all their works?”

“I do.”

“And all their books and institutions?”

“I do.”

Scapegoating a Race

Multiculturalists point to long-dead slaveowners, or to freakishly rich members of the “one percent,” to pretend that every white man partakes of “privilege.” So he ought to be suspect as a bigot till proven otherwise. Likewise, anti-Semites have always pointed to Jewish accomplishments and influence as proof of their power and wickedness.

If you scoff at the idea that white men could ever be victims, remember this: Scholars of the Holocaust report that German Jews were the best-assimilated, wealthiest, and most successful Jewish community in the history of the world. Right up until 1933. That didn’t help them. Alas, their achievements made them a highly attractive scapegoat.

“Kill As Many White Males as Possible.”

I wonder what part the escalating atmosphere of racial/sexual hatred played in the recent mass killing in Fresno, California. The killer, Kori Ali Muhammad, interrupted his spree to go online and announce “that he was going to kill as many white males as possible,” according to Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer.

Yes, Muhammad was deranged. But so was Charleston killer Dylann Roof. That didn’t stop observers from concluding that Roof represented a dangerous trend in racist violence. They won’t say that about Muhammad. In fact, since the facts have come out, you will not hear his name mentioned in the media ever again. Especially that name.

As proof that multiculturalism is virulent, dangerous, and ungrounded in reality, I could cite the epidemic of “deaths of despair” among less educated white men in America: Why isn’t it being taken seriously as a public health catastrophe like breast cancer or AIDS? I could point to the persecution of all-male organizations at colleges. Black and Muslim groups, of course, are exempted. Or the fact that white males, alone, are not protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Should White Men Be Stripped of the Vote?

Instead, let’s talk about an event that on the face of it seems less serious. On April 13, The Huffington Post ran a column by “Shelley Garland” that argued for depriving white males of the vote:

Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year have often been due to the votes of white men. If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa’s biggest cities.

If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world. The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008. This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.

At the same time, a denial of the franchise to white men, could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners. After all, white men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce modern capitalism. A period of twenty years without white men in the world’s parliaments and voting booths will allow legislation to be passed which could see the world’s wealth far more equitably shared. The violence of white male wealth and income inequality will be a thing of the past.

Now, you’ll notice that I didn’t include a link to that column. That’s because The Huffington Post took it down. Why did that happen? Did some sane editor read the article and conclude, accurately, that it was hate speech against human beings who happened to be both male and white?

Silencing Satire, Like Good Little Stalinists

No, not at all. You see, it turned out that the piece was a satire. It was written by a white guy. As Heat Street reports:

Earlier this week, the gullible Huffington Post fell victim to a hoax article calling for white men to be stripped of their voting rights. The site became the subject of widespread derision and condemnation after HuffPost editors stood up to defend the article’s content.

But as was later revealed, the author submitted the piece to Huffington Post South Africa as a hoax, intending to prove a point about the outlet’s radical leftist stance. He did so under a fake persona masquerading as a feminist activist named “Shelly Garland.” …

Following its publication and subsequent retraction, the HuffPost identified the author behind the “Shelly Garland” persona as Marius Roodt, a researcher at South Africa’s Centre for Development and Enterprise. According to the site, the email address Roodt used to submit the piece was traced back to him. The site claims that his identity was further “confirmed with facial recognition technology,” as he digitally altered a picture of himself to look like a woman.

Pretty funny, right? Except that after Roodt was outed, he lost his job. No, not the editors who published the outrageous article, thinking it was dead serious and a pretty good idea. They’re still working, still shaping American minds.

You Think That’s Funny? You’re Fired.

But Roodt was stripped of his livelihood for daring to mock the pieties of the church of multiculturalism. His employer publicly denounced him. And The Huffington Post took down the post, under the rationale that it had turned out to be hate speech.

Have you got that? At first, the article seemed to call in all seriousness for hundreds of millions of people (rich and poor, including coal miners and war veterans) to be denied the right to vote because of their sex and their race.

So The Huffington Post had no problem with it. They defended it, in fact. But when it came out that the piece was in fact a satire of that position, now it amounted to hate speech.

Wrap your mind around that. Try “mansplaining” that to yourself.

No wonder some white guys are paranoid. People really are out to get them. (For more from the author of “Repeat After Me (or Lose Your Job): ‘White Men Are Not Being Persecuted. And They Deserve It.'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


‘Communism for Kids’ Turns Deadly Ideology Into a Fairy Tale

In order to make the deadliest ideology of the 20th century palatable to young Americans, “Communism for Kids” is coming to a bookstore near you.

This newly released book from MIT Press “proposes a different kind of communism, one that is true to its ideals and free from authoritarianism.”

The death toll from communist regimes in the 20th century is well-documented. One study found that more people were killed under communism than homicide and genocide combined, and only 9 million more people were killed in World War I and World War II combined than under governments of this ideology.

Another study showed how the mass killings of civilians by their own governments took an immediate nosedive after the collapse of the Soviet Union and international communism.

According to the Amazon synopsis, the book weaves a fairy tale of “jealous princesses, fancy swords, displaced peasants, mean bosses, and tired workers.”

It is bewildering why MIT Press would publish a book that cutesies up the political creed that gave the world Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, and many more of the world’s most prolific mass murderers. None of these brutal dictators are mentioned in the book, according to The Washington Free Beacon.

Communism seemingly gets a pass to be reimagined as a sweet fable while it’s inconceivable that a book called “Fascism for Kids” would ever be printed by a reputable publisher.

Marion Smith of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation wrote, according to The Washington Free Beacon:

While I can imagine a book so titled that would make a valuable contribution to a reader’s understanding of the truth about communism, the book MIT Press published is not it. ‘Communism for Kids’ whitewashes and infantilizes ideas that, when put into action, have cost more than 100 million lives.

This odd attempt to get kids into communism is unlikely to spawn a new generation of true believers on its own, but it does highlight the growing problem for younger Americans who are generally clueless about even recent history.

As The Daily Signal previously reported, a study from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that millennials, in particular, are stunningly ignorant about what occurred under the Soviet Union and other communist regimes just a generation ago.

One-third of millennials surveyed actually believe that more people were killed under former President George W. Bush than under Soviet dictator Stalin.

If one truly wants to teach young Americans what communism is really about, it would be better to hand them a copy of the classic “Animal Farm,” by George Orwell.

The book is an allegory—using farm animals as stand-ins—about the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia a century ago. The revolutionary promise of “all animals are equal” is used to overthrow farmers, but quickly turns into a new, even more oppressive tyranny under animal overlords

A reign of forced labor, intimidation, and terror puts the animals under the thumb of their new masters—their ideals used to prop up an all-powerful regime. The refashioned creed becomes “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” In the end, human, or rather “animal,” nature proved to be more powerful than any ideology.

As the Roman poet Horace once said: “You can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but she will ever hurry back.”

This lesson from Orwell would be a much better way to teach young people about destructive ideology than a fanciful account of how “true” communism—minus the mean authoritarian stuff and mass murder—would be truly grand.

Under communism, tyranny is a feature, not a bug. (For more from the author of “‘Communism for Kids’ Turns Deadly Ideology Into a Fairy Tale” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Justice Unserved? Should Katherine Russell Be Charged as a Suspect in the Boston Marathon Bombings?

What did she know, when did she know it, and how could she not know? Four years after the Boston Marathon bombings, questions remain surrounding the role of Katherine Russell as a potential accomplice to the deadly crimes committed by Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Katherine Russell (who sometimes went by her married name, Karima Tsarnaev) has never been charged in connection with the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing terrorist attacks, which killed three, resulted in 17 amputees, and wounded another 240 innocent people.

While the two perpetrators of the attacks have been brought to justice (with Tamerlan’s death and Dzokhar currently locked up in a super max prison), Russell has somehow escaped justice for potentially being an accomplice to a vicious Islamic terror attack on U.S. soil.

She who was born to a “tight-knit” Catholic family in Rhode Island, had excelled in school and enrolled in Suffolk University. Affectionately known to her friends simply as Katie, Russell was described as a popular, friendly person who had everything going for her.

Her life took a radical turn for the worst in 2009 after meeting Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a devout Muslim who would watch radical Islamic videos and generally hated what the United States stands for, according to a neighbor.

Russell converted to Islam in 2010 at the Masjid al Qur’aan in Boston. Later that year, she dropped out of college. She was rarely seen outside of the apartment (other than making her trips to and from work as a home health care assistant) she shared with her husband and young child, according to neighbors. This means that she was almost certainly present as her husband used their apartment (which was smaller than 800 square feet) to make pressure cooker bombs and watch radical jihadi videos.

Her defense team has framed her relationship with Tamerlan as an abusive one. They claim she worked tirelessly, and spent the rest of her time caring for their child and isolated from even the people inside her small home. They say she had no advance knowledge of his plans.

However, there is more than just circumstantial evidence tying Russell to the terrorist act.

Months before the bombing, she conducted online searches on her Macbook computer for “wife of mujahedeen” and “If your husband becomes a Shahid, what are the rewards for you?” prosecutors said during the 2015 trial. Mujahedeen means people engaged in jihad, or Islamic holy war. A Shahid is a martyr for the religion of Islam.

Following the attacks, she seemed to justify the ruthless methods of her husband and brother-in-law, texting a friend: “Although a lot more people are killed every day in Syria and other places. Innocent people.”

She also retained radical Islamic propaganda videos on her personal computer, such as al Qaeda’s infamous “Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom” video that has provided bomb-making guidance for countless jihadis.

After the bombing, police sought out the help of the local Boston community to help find the suspects they had identified through grainy photos. When pictures of Tamerlan’s face had started to appear on television, Russell called him to inform him, according to police sources, who told The Weekly Standard at the time.

Russell was profiled as someone who was well aware of the planning stages of the attacks in the movie “Patriots Day,” the 2016 film about the Boston Marathon bombings. Her lawyers insist that it unfairly portrays their client, while the filmmakers stand by their research related to her role in the attack.

Since the terror attacks, Russell has jumped around from state to state. She first attempted to move back into her family home in Rhode Island. Although there were signs of initial reconciliation, the efforts to bring her back into the fold failed after she clashed with her family over her Islamic faith, according to one relative.

She found a better fit in the New Jersey home of her late husband’s sisters, Bella and Ailina Tsarnaev, the latter who appears to be a radical Islamist. In 2015, she told her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend that she knew people who could set off a bomb in her home.

Russell has since remarried and had another baby, Ailina Tsarnaev said.

It remains unclear whether prosecutors will ever decide to pursue charges against Russell. She has kept an extremely low profile over the past year. In September 2016, authorities wanted to question her with regard to Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s activities. Russell released a statement through her lawyers in September 2016.

“The injuries and loss of life – to people who came to celebrate a race and a holiday – has caused profound distress and sorrow to Katie and her family. The reports of involvement by her husband and brother-in-law came as an absolute shock to them all,” the statement said. (For more from the author of “Justice Unserved? Should Katherine Russell Be Charged as a Suspect in the Boston Marathon Bombings?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Panorama_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Building_at_Dusk (2)

Boom: Neil Gorsuch Just Made Originalists Happy with One Simple Question

Donald Trump’s first appointee to the Supreme Court wasted no time in making his voice heard (literally) before the chamber Monday morning. Among the first questions Justice Neil Gorsuch asked was a positive indicator for originalists who supported his nomination.

Gorsuch’s process of finding the original meaning of the law, as written – one of the more comical non-scandals surrounding his confirmation hearing – has indeed followed him onto his first day on the job, as evidenced by a one-line question he asked from the bench:

“Wouldn’t it be a lot easier if we just followed the plain text of the statute?”

According to a report at ABC News, the newest justice spent a great deal of time questioning the federal worker’s lawyer about the wording of a statute related to the case, before grilling the Justice Department’s attorney about the meaning of the Civil Service Reform Act.

The case in question was Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, which revolves around the proper jurisdiction of a federal census worker’s employment dispute. Perry was the first of three that the once-again fully fledged bench was set to hear on the first day of its last session of the current term.

Despite the long, impressive resume that the Colorado native brings to Justice Scalia’s former seat, only time will tell what kind of jurist Trump’s first pick will turn out to be, and what kind of mark he will leave on the body of constitutional law.

But first impressions do matter, and one like this has been on many people’s wish list for a long time. (For more from the author of “Boom: Neil Gorsuch Just Made Originalists Happy with One Simple Question” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Bill O’Reilly out at Fox News Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations

Bill O’Reilly is leaving the Fox News Channel, the network’s parent company announced today.

“After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel,” 21st Century Fox said in a statement.

The star host has been dogged by misconduct claims — some sexual in nature — since an April 1 story in The New York Times detailed alleged settlements made between the host and five women who accused him of harassment and sexual misconduct.

An internal 21st Century Fox memo obtained by ABC News said that the “decision follows an extensive review done in collaboration with outside counsel.” The memo was signed by Rupert, Lachlan and James Murdoch, the company’s top executives.

“We want to underscore our consistent commitment to fostering a work environment built on the values of trust and respect,” the memo concluded. (Read more from “Bill O’Reilly out at Fox News Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


25 Percent of Millennials Who Live at Home Are Unemployed

A quarter of millennials living at home with their parents have no job and no responsibilities. Twenty-five percent of 18-to-34-year-olds in the U.S. living under their parents’ roof are on an extended vacation, but not entirely by choice.

The U.S. Census Bureau released a comprehensive study Wednesday analyzing the economic and demographic changes of young adults from 1970 to 2016. Nearly 1-in-3 millennials live at home with one-in-four living idly, meaning they neither go to school or work. That’s approximately 2.2 million people.

The majority of the 2.2 million have a high school degree or less, over half of them are male, and about 20 percent of them have at least one child. A quarter of the group also has some type of disability.

The report also found another interesting development among young cohorts: Unlike their parents and other previous generations that chose to get married young, millennials are pushing their marriage prospects back rather dramatically . . .

The vast majority of Americans hold to the belief that educational and financially lucrative accomplishments are important milestones of adulthood. Those beliefs stand in stark contrast to their feelings about marriage and parenthood. (Read more from “25 Percent of Millennials Who Live at Home Are Unemployed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.