The President Should Not Play Ball With Illegitimate Border Lawsuit

Could a third-party organization get standing to select any district court it wants to control and determine who is admitted into this country at the international border? That is the question in light of the ACLU’s lawsuit against Trump’s asylum regulation. It is also the question the Trump administration needs to emphatically answer right now before lending legitimacy to this abuse of separation of powers.

On Tuesday, like clockwork, the ACLU and a bunch of open-borders groups sued the Department of Justice’s latest asylum regulation that simply affirms the integrity of the system. The proposed rule would limit asylum to those who didn’t game the system and pass up other countries that are a party to the asylum treaty before seeking asylum in the U.S. The lawsuit was so contrived that it was likely drafted even before the regulation was published, because it erroneously names John Sanders as head of Customs and Border Protection when the current acting commissioner is Mark Morgan.

Trump has the opportunity to cut this off and call upon his attorney general to declare that there is no legitimacy to this lawsuit and decline to send lawyers to the San Francisco court for this dog-and-pony show.

Forum-shopping and nationwide injunctions are illegitimate

It is simply absurd and illegal for a district court not on the border to rule on a national – even international – issue affecting entry at the border. Most of the family units are coming in at the Texas border, and none of them are in the Northern District of California. Only two percent coming in at the California border at all. Why did the ACLU go there? Because it has a 13-1 majority of Democrat appointees, and that is the district that has single-handedly vitiated the rest of our existing immigration laws.

It’s time for the Trump administration to once and for all declare that nationwide and universal injunctions by district judges are unconstitutional and violate the inherent limitation of “cases and controversies” spelled out in Article III powers. This will affect the rest of his presidency and the future of the republic on every issue, but most certainly on border security. Now is the time to force that issue.

There is no judicial jurisdiction over foreign affairs

It is momentous that the ACLU chose the Northern District of California, a point that must be publicized by the president and his attorney general. This is the very district court that, in 1996, said that the “exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty” and that “the right to do so stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. (Encuentro del Canto Popular v. Christopher, N.D. Cal. 1996.) There is nothing more to talk about. Even if the Left is correct about the reading of base asylum statutes, which it is not because asylum is discretionary and never supersedes national security concerns, the president always has the authority to shut it off. It’s not just from statutory 1182(f) delegated authority, but as this very court said, from his own Article II authority over entry at the border. The president can deny entry to anyone he wants, certainly when we are seeing dozens of terrible effects on the American people and on the migrants themselves because of the rush at the border and the empowerment of the cartels and MS-13.

Once Trump establishes this is a foreign affairs issue, it destroys the Left’s next argument. The ACLU alleges that the DOJ violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by not waiting 30 days to potentially implement the policy. Aside from the numerous reasons why the APA doesn’t apply here (see Alito’s partial dissent in the census case), 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(1) explicitly exempts a “foreign affairs function” from the APA.

The Courts have zero jurisdiction to give standing

If the Trump administration agrees to legitimize this case, it will not only give our sovereignty over immigration to the courts, something the Supreme Court has rejected for 130 years, it would be allowing courts to veto any policy without any requirement for Article III standing.

Courts don’t veto policies or laws. There is no judicial veto in the Constitution. What courts can do is grant relief to plaintiffs with valid standing when a cognizable injury is evident as a result of the denial of a constitutional right or a legally protected interest. As the Supreme Court said in 2013, “The law of Article III standing, which is built on separation-of-powers principles, serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.” (Clapper v. Amnesty International USA.)

7.8 billion people in the world simply don’t have standing to sue for the right to come here. That has long been settled. In Lem Moon Sing (1895), the court said that not only does Congress have full authority to exclude without judicial intervention, but the executive branch officials do as well. The court noted that one could not argue that if an “alien is entitled of right, by some law or treaty, to enter this country, but is nevertheless excluded by such officers” that the courts could get involved.

“That view, if sustained, would bring into the courts every case of an alien claiming the right to come into the United States under some law or treaty, but who was prevented from doing so by the executive branch of the government. This would defeat the manifest purpose of Congress in committing to subordinate immigration officers and to the Secretary of the Treasury exclusive authority to determine whether a particular alien seeking admission into this country belongs to the class entitled by some law or treaty to come into the country, or to a class forbidden to enter the United States.”

So, the new tactic of these refugee or open-borders agitation groups is to sue as if they, not the aliens, are the aggrieved party. Typically, the ACLU or another NGO will sue on behalf of a real plaintiff. In this case, they are asserting that they are the aggrieved party because, according to the brief filed in the N.D. of California, “The new Rule frustrates Al Otro Lado’s mission and will force Al Otro Lado to divert significant resources away from its other programs.” They claim they will lose revenue from taxpayer funds or have to strain their staff to function.

Folks, if the court were to legitimize this avenue of standing, then there is not a single policy of any sort that can’t be sued by anyone. Say you have an organization that offers legal help to tax cheats. Then government resolves to more aggressively clamp down on tax fraud. Can your tax cheat law firm get standing to sue the government because now there will be fewer clients and your revenue will be reduced? That is quite literally what the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, one of the litigants, claimed in support of obtaining standing to sue in this case.

The ACLU is bringing the lawsuit on behalf of East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otri Lado, Innovation Law Lab, and the Central American Resource Center in Los Angeles.

The president or the attorney general should deliver a national address and read some of the ACLU’s brief word for word, and the American people will see the absurdity on their own. They already understand the absurdity of forum-shopping, nationwide injunctions, and judicial tyranny of one of 94 federal courts. Trump’s advisers and lawyers need to step outside to the real America and turn away from political Twitter, and they will see the American people do not want this swarm at the border, nor do they want the ACLU and California judges usurping power. It’s time they actually fight for the forgotten American taxpayer who never gets standing in any court to uphold the rule of law and sovereignty.

We either have three branches of government, or we have 1/94th of the unelected weakest branch determining foreign affairs. (For more from the author of “The President Should Not Play Ball With Illegitimate Border Lawsuit” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Will the Desecration of the American Flag at ICE Facility Turn the Tide of the Border Battle?

The overwhelming majority of Americans, including most swing voters, want Republicans to simply enforce our immigration laws and prioritize the needs of Americans over the desires of illegal aliens. Why won’t they?

Republicans will likely miss the powerful symbolism of illegal alien protesters ripping down the American flag at an ICE facility in Aurora, Colorado, and raising the Mexican flag. For those of us who are veterans of the fight for sovereignty, this act conjured up memories of the 2006 fight over amnesty that conservatives successfully turned into a law to protect sovereignty, a law yet to be enforced by our government.

In 2006, the Left, along with Sen. John McCain and President George W. Bush, tried to repeat the 1986 amnesty for illegal aliens already here. As always, the American people were dead set against it, but they just weren’t activated, because all of the political money and activism is on the other side. That all changed when illegal aliens started publicly attacking our flag, according to Michelle Malkin, who was the leading conservative voice fighting amnesty at the time.

“In the spring of 2006, the illegal alien amnesty mob finally pushed Americans over the edge,” said Malkin in an interview with CR.

“Ethnic grievance-mongers raised the Mexican flag over the American flag flying upside down at Montebello High School in southern California. The flag wars quickly spread to Florida, Texas, Arizona, and my now-adopted home state of Colorado. At the time, I wrote: ‘I predict this stunt will be the nail in the coffin of any guest-worker/amnesty plan on the table in Washington.’ I was right. Thanks to these unbridled displays of anti-American hatred, citizens rose fiercely to the defense of our borders and our laws — and the Bush amnesty plan crashed in flames.”

Malkin noted that “P.R. strategists for the sovereignty saboteurs have tried to clean up their act and dress up their endless amnesty campaigns in red, white, and blue” ever since they made that blunder. “They temporarily put down their foreign flags, stopped wearing their commie Che Guevara T-shirts, and cloaked their radical Reconquista aspirations in the less divisive rhetoric of ‘reform,’ ‘opportunity,’ and DREAMers. But they just can’t help themselves. They can never hide their true colors — and the Mexican flag-raising in Aurora this past weekend proved it. Once again, I predict doom for the border-erasers. They’ve crossed a line that Americans have not, cannot, and will not tolerate.”

What did conservatives get for their efforts in 2006? A mandate for at least 850 miles of double-layer fencing and a requirement that DHS achieve full operational control to prevent all illegal immigration and cartel activity at any land or maritime border within 18 months of passage. It’s just that the law was never implemented.

Moreover, President Bush actually started enforcing interior immigration laws and deporting illegal aliens with 287(g) and the Secure Communities program, where deportations were ramped up, an effort that bore fruit even well into the first term of Obama’s precedency, when we were averaging over 400,000 deportations a year. MS-13 was almost eradicated from the country as a result of this successful push by we the people.

The lesson of the flag is that America can survive a conventional invasion that is eventually repelled. At the “dawn’s early light” of September 14, 1814, despite a 25-hour bombardment of Fort McHenry, Baltimore, by the British navy, “our flag was still there.” There was no Union Jack flying over the fort, despite the superior British firepower. But when our government subverts our sovereignty laws and brings in millions of illegal aliens who then become the most powerful constituency in the country – with the ability to single-handedly command the legislative agenda of the House of Representatives for the month of July – our flag was easily removed from an ICE detention facility and the Mexican flag was raised for several hours.

An invading army is not counted in the census. An invading army does not steal birthright citizenship for their children. An invading army doesn’t sue us in court and change our language, at least not right away.

In that sense, those who recoil when we refer to the border situation as “an invasion” are correct. This is worse than an invasion. It is subtler, yet more enduring and transformational in the long run.

This very point, missed by the political elites, including many so-called conservative political elites, is understood even by many run-of-the-mill Democrat voters. According to a Harvard-Harris poll, by a margin of 2-1, independent and moderate voters want illegal aliens, even those with questionable asylum claims, “immediately turned back” at the border. That view is held even by 44 percent of self-described Hillary Clinton voters.

While Democrats are holding one hearing after another on how they can shield and encourage more illegal immigration at the border, Republicans are missing in action, not holding hearings in the Senate on all the harms illegal aliens are causing Americans. Most Republicans are clamoring to show that they care more about the treatment of the invaders than the constituents they represent because they think the Twitter bubble is representative of American voters’ sentiments on the issue. They are simply wrong.

According to Axios, a recent focus group of 12 swing voters in the swing state of Michigan demonstrated this point. “Immigration came up many times when these swing voters were asked to discuss their top issue heading into the presidential election,” reports Axios. “Their responses sounded a lot like the ‘America First’ message President Trump has been championing.”

This focus group was composed of the quintessential swing voters – people who voted for both Romney (2012) and Hillary (2016) or both Obama (2012) and Trump (2016). What did they find? “Eight of these participants, including one Romney-Clinton voter, agreed with this statement: “When we give migrants food, clothing, toiletries, and shelter, all we’re doing is encouraging more of them to come to the U.S., and we don’t want that.”

In other words, most moderate voters are to the right of even the messaging of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress.

Among conservative elites in D.C., going after unqualified birthright citizenship for people who break into the country is considered a no-fly zone. For the average American, on the other hand, it is a no-brainer. “We shouldn’t give away our birthright like candy,” said Shawn M. “Meaning that all they have to do is cross the border illegally, pop out a kid, and they’re a U.S. citizen. Two illegals do not a citizen make,” she added.

Indeed, the American people stood defiant against a naval attack by a superpower 200 years ago. They stood for the flag. They certainly won’t be cowed by an invasion of illegal immigration and social transformation without representation. The only question is whether the elites of the bipartisan oligarch in Washington will catch up to the mainstream of American thought. (For more from the author of “Will the Desecration of the American Flag at Ice Facility Turn the Tide of the Border Battle?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Pro-China Communists Working to Mobilize 40 Million New Voters Against Trump

President Donald Trump and the Republican Party had better be ready for a tsunami of new Democratic voters coming their way in 2020.

Far from the easy victory many pundits are predicting, there’s a strong chance that the president and his party (strong economy notwithstanding) may be overwhelmed by an unexpected wave of new voters coming mainly from the South and Southwest.

The same pro-China, communist-led organizations that almost won gubernatorial races in Florida and Georgia in 2018, and have almost turned once-reliably Republican Virginia blue, are aiming to mobilize a staggering 40 million new voters against President Trump.

If this network can mobilize just 20 percent of the new voters they are targeting, Trump will be a one-term president. Donald Trump Jr.’s recent prediction that the 2020 election will be a battle between “freedom and communism” will prove horribly accurate.

While most commentators are focusing on Midwestern “battleground” states, the American far-left is looking further South. The Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) and its allies are looking to the millions of black, Latino, and low-income white potential voters in the South and Southwest who lean heavily Democrat, but traditionally vote in low numbers.

If the FRSO can mobilize several million new Democratic voters in North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Arizona over the next 18 months, Trump will find victory extremely difficult—even if he makes some gains in Northern, Midwestern, and Western states.

Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona are all extremely vulnerable. Georgia isn’t far behind, and even Texas is in play. If the communists can flip Florida and Arizona for the Democrats, Trump almost certainly loses. If Georgia and North Carolina turn blue, Texas is not even needed. If Texas goes blue, the Democrat/communist alliance rules the United States forever.

Who Is Jon Liss?

Jon Liss is one of the most influential and little-known political operatives in the United States today. A longtime leader of the FRSO, Liss has been building political influence in Northern Virginia for over three decades. He has been active in Tenants and Workers United, the Rainbow Coalition/Jesse Jackson presidential campaign, the Fairfax County Taxi-drivers Association, and the Left Strategies Collective.

Liss’s organization, FRSO, itself grew out of the Maoist “New Communist Movement” of the 1970s and has maintained ties to the People’s Republic of China. The FRSO is probably about 2,000 members strong, but it works in partnership with the 5,000 members of the equally pro-China Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and the nearly 60,000-strong Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Working together in an alliance called the “Left Inside/Outside Project,” these three groups have infiltrated the Democratic Party in every state of the union.

Mass Voter Registration

In recent years, Liss has led New Virginia Majority (NVM), an Alexandria-based voter registration operation that has signed up several hundred thousand, mainly minority voters to turn Virginia to Democratic-leaning from a reliably Republican state. NVM is able to micro-target potential Democratic voters by using sophisticated demographic information and maps generated by an FRSO supporter based in the Geography Department of Wuhan University in China.

NVM’s Florida partner organization, New Florida Majority (NFM), almost elected far-leftist Andrew Gillum to the governorship of Florida in 2018, by helping raise the Democratic vote in the Sunshine State by more than 40 percent. Similar communist-directed mass engagement of minority voters almost elected Stacey Abrams to the governorship of Georgia and Beto O’Rourke to the U.S. Senate from Texas. They did succeed in electing Democrats Kyrsten Sinema and Doug Jones to the U.S. Senate from Arizona and Alabama, respectively. In North Carolina, FRSO activists have used minority voters to elect several leftist Democrats to local government positions.

State Power Caucus

The lessons learned in Virginia, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, and Texas are now being applied on a national scale to oust Trump.

One of the main coordinating bodies for this ambitious project is the State Power Caucus, headed by Liss and FRSO affiliate Andrea Mercado of NFM.

Liss writes about this new strategy on the FRSO-aligned website Organizing Upgrade:

“Inspired by the disaster of Trump and Trumpism two years out, most organizers are engaged in barroom or coffee shop speculation about the 2020 election.

“Among the two dozen announced Democratic candidates, many debate: will it be Sanders or Warren, with their attacks on corporate Democrats? Will it be one of Hillary’s heirs, with their cozy relationship with Wall Street? Will Harris be the first Black woman nominated by a major party? If it’s Biden, do we sit it out?

“All of it is idle speculation unless ‘we’ collectively organize tens of millions of the 108 million eligible voters who didn’t vote in 2016. That’s right, one hundred and eight million eligible voters chose not to register or to vote in 2016. The non-voting block is disproportionately young, poor, and people of color.”

So what’s the solution?

“Dozens of state-based power building organizations have banded together to lead efforts to build a bottom up long term front against Trump and Trumpism. Over the last twenty-five years, state power organizations have grown to fill the political space created by the decline of Democratic Party local organization, the breakup and collapse of ACORN, and low levels of voter turnout. This reflects a shift from narrow Alinskyism and its very limited political engagement.”

For years, communist-influenced groups such as ACORN and its spinoffs have chipped away at the Republican voting base in scattered efforts across multiple states. What Liss reveals here is an effort to consolidate these groups into one front to massively amplify their effects.

Building the Caucus

According to Liss:

“Starting in the summer of 2017, many leading state-power organizations have come together as a caucus to support peer-to-peer learning and incubate innovate organizing practices. Included among the organizations that have been leading the State Power Caucus are New Virginia Majority, New Florida Majority, California Calls, Washington Community Action Network, and Kentuckians for the Commonwealth.

“All told, there are 22 organizations from 15 states involved in the Caucus. Importantly, these organizations recognized the need to develop a systematic and long-term alternative to Trumpism.”

These groups, all affiliated with the FRSO, can credibly claim to have had a significant effect on voting patterns since the 2016 election cycle. However, they acknowledge that a much greater effort will be required to defeat Trump.

“We’ve also begun to assess the collective impact of state-based organizations. Looking at 2016, our rough estimate is that at most 4 million people were contacted and encouraged to vote. This is our high-water estimate. The actual number who actually voted is probably much lower still.

“Now, recall the 108 million people who were eligible but not voting? They are largely our ‘core’ constituency, or in other terms, they are our unorganized social base. This 108 million, when compared to the voting electorate, is more Black, more immigrant, more working class and poor.

“If we initially target just half of the 108 million, and we acknowledge that some in that half are going to disagree with our values and politics, some aren’t going to vote no matter what, and some are in geographies that we just can’t reach, we believe our real voter mobilization target number is 40 million, and we’ve agreed as a caucus to that number as our target. That’s our natural constituency.”

Liss sees this goal as a means to elect more socialists and communists to public office, but also to decisively defeat Trump as a step toward moving the country much further down the socialist road.

“The long game to defeat white nationalism and move past neo-liberal corporatism is by building a bottom up movement of 40 million people.”

New Party, New Society

In a follow-up article on Organizing Upgrade, Liss makes it clear that the State Power Caucus aims to go way beyond defeating Trump. The real goal is to build a new mass socialist party that will eventually be able to challenge for state power.

Liss is happy that the communist left has finally acknowledged the necessity of electoral work on the road to a socialist America. The Bernie Sanders movement has been a big part of this tactical shift. Liss writes:

“I’m old, but a little too young to have lived through the New Communist Movement of the 1970s and its battles to form revolutionary parties and pre-parties, that is, to build a disciplined band of professional revolutionaries to carry out a political line. … On the other hand, there is a unique, maybe even historic opportunity to build a political-strategic space to carry out electoral organizing.

“Increasingly, there is a sector of radical organizations who believe that electoral work is a key area of struggle. That is a huge shift from the last few decades: credit Bernie and his campaign for revitalizing the notion of socialism and the importance of elections, credit many immigrant rights, Occupy and Movement for Black Lives leaders for recognizing the need for mass action AND an electoral strategy.”

But all this new energy will be wasted without centralized coordination:

“It’s time to create a ‘general command’ or a place where all organized groups of people who view elections as key area of struggle and who view growing a base of radical ‘new majority’ Democratic voters as a central task. To be explicit, new majority Democrats refers to women, especially women of color, Black and immigrant voters, and sectors of young and working-class voters.”

It’s also imperative to support whoever the Democrats choose to challenge Trump:

“Our task is to build an organizational vehicle, what I call a ‘party-like space’ … around the following points: a) build a stronger, larger base of voters of color, younger voters and women voters (in Virginia, for example, Black women voters have been the motor for all progressive change), b) support existing state power organizations that is ,some of the dozens of social movement organizations contending for state level governing power, or at least organizations that are outside of the Democratic Party structures c) agree to support the Democratic candidate who emerges to take on Trump in the general election.”

So what would this party-like structure do? According to Liss, it would be “a valuable step toward a coherent approach for building a socialist movement.”

“On a strategic level, this party-like space would exist in order to build the foundations for a mass left organization capable of challenging elites in the two dominant parties, leveraging the strengths and demands of multiple movements, and making possible a struggle for life beyond Trump and Trumpism. Practical next steps should include:

1. Agree to these or similar points of unity …

2. Coordinate electoral plans.

3. Do real world work both together and apart, regularly and collectively assess progress, learn lessons and adjust strategies.

4. Recruit other projects and organizations to join this political space.

5. Develop working relationships to funnel members and volunteers to state power organizations, DSA, or the Working Families Party who are building independently of the Democratic Party, while also expanding the electorate and building the broadest front against Trump and Trumpism.”

Communist Inspiration

In order to illustrate the past successes of this approach, Liss cites the example of El Salvador’s often ruling FMLN, an electoral alliance built around the Communist Party of El Salvador.

“In El Salvador, 5 organizations under life-threatening duress managed to unite to create the FMLN. They started with very different strategic positions but created a process for collaboration and coordination. Over time, many of the differences were not nearly as important as the need to work together. Again, while longer term strategic considerations may develop over time, getting this real work started for 2020 is the way to start.”

Credible Threat

The FRSO and its allies have enough people and resources to make possible their plan to mobilize 40 million new voters against Trump.

Their leadership of the State Power Caucus and their control of 22 voter registration organizations in 15 states is no small army. Add to that massive funding from the Democracy Alliance, labor unions, and leftist foundations, and possible ongoing informational support from China. It’s clear that Trump has some serious under-the-radar opposition coming from the FRSO and the State Power Caucus.

These groups will work in California, Ohio, and other states, but the real focus will be Southern and Southwestern Republican-held states with high minority populations. North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Arizona may well be the real battleground states this election cycle.

The outcome of the next election will either set the United States on a new upward spiral of freedom and prosperity, or it could send the United States and the West into a nearly unstoppable downward spiral into socialism and tyranny.

In World War II, the battle for civilization was decided in the battles of the Coral Sea, Midway Island, Normandy, and “The Bulge.”

The looming battle for civilization may well be fought in the ballot boxes of Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina.

Re-posted with permission of the author.
__________________________________________________

Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker, and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist, and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

President Trump Should Set the Refugee Cap for 2020 at ZERO

If over one million people are coming straight to our border this year, much of it fueled by quasi-asylum policies, why should we willingly bring in more people through a separate refugee program? The president should pose that question to the American people and then should announce a cap of zero for annual refugee intake in fiscal year 2020.

The Refugee Act of 1980 [8 U.S.C. §1157(a)(2)] grants the president the sole authority to set the annual cap for refugee intake. He only needs to “consult” with the Senate and House Judiciary committees, but they have no veto power over his decision without changing the law. Thus, there is nothing stopping the president from setting the cap at zero when the State Department sends the annual written report to Congress roughly two months from now.

To his credit, the president did reduce the cap to 45,000 in FY 2018 and 30,000 in FY 2019. So far, for the first three quarters of this fiscal year, 21,604 refugees have been processed. That is a sharp drop from the standard 70,000 cap for most of the past few decades and from the 110,000 cap Obama set in his final year in office. However, with everything going on at the border, it is simply indefensible to bring in more refugees when our system can’t handle the quasi-asylum invasion at our border. Dropping the number of refugees by 80,000 or so is nothing when we have one million people coming to our border.

Whether you believe in holding the line at the border or in processing more catch-and-release for amnesty at the border, either way, we need every resource we have among immigration officers trained in asylum adjudication and processing to deal with the border. Every employee of USCIS needs to be working on clearing the existing backlog in the system being driven by the border invasion. While 30,000 refugees doesn’t sound like a lot based on historical trends, all those employees who would be diverted to that process next year should be marshalled to combat the border crisis.

The refugee program is broken beyond repair anyway, and any sane government official would admit that it should be suspended while we deal with our broken border. We spend 12 times as much money resettling migrants in America as it would cost to resettle them in their own regions. Moreover, as Christians and Jews in the Middle East are becoming extinct, much of the resettlement program has become a fundamental transformation of America by bringing in thousands of non-assimilating Muslims engaged in protracted sectarian civil wars. The cost to Americans in terms of welfare, security, and culture is staggering — and it all enriches self-promoting and parasitic refugee contractors.

Moreover, it’s important to remember that much of the border crisis is already straining the refugee resettlement program under the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The thousands of Central American children smuggled in by illegal alien families are all being processed and resettled just like the refugees we choose to admit from other parts of the world. It’s unfair for the agency and its advocates to double-dip. If we are experiencing record resettlement of Central American kids, which is bankrupting the agency, then there is no reason to electively add more to the program.

Finally, there is also another refugee program not subject to the annual caps, the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program, which has continued to grow under the Trump administration. It seems like the only purpose of our military remaining in Afghanistan is to bring in families of those who supposedly helped us in the dubious mission, which runs completely counter to the entire purpose of the War on Terror and the impetus for 9/11 (protecting America from dangerous immigrants). Since Trump took office, the State Department has admitted over 30,000 SIVs from Afghanistan and close to 10,000 from Iraq.

Bottom line? There’s no reason to have a separate refugee program when our entire border and immigration system has become one mass fraudulent refugee system. (For more from the author of “President Trump Should Set the Refugee Cap for 2020 at Zero” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

From the Redcoats to the Black Robes

King George couldn’t hold a candle to the judicial despotism we are governed by some 12 score and three years after the colonists rebelled against what they thought were “intolerable acts.” Sure, there was some taxation without representation going on in the 1770s, but I think the colonists would have taken that any day if they were to see in their crystal ball the severity of today’s social transformation without representation.

We celebrate so much more than the founding of a new nation on July 4. After all, the day the Continental Congress actually declared independence was July 2. What we celebrate on Independence Day is the philosophy of self-governance that the Founders adopted in our Declaration of Independence, for without self-governance, what would have been the point of declaring independence from one king, only to condemn themselves to despotism under their “own” rulers?

Packed into the 201 words of the preamble of the document crafted by Thomas Jefferson with the help of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman were six foundational principles on the morality of a just governing system.

That individuals are born with natural rights that come from God, not a human institution.

That chief among those natural rights given by God are life, liberty, and pursuitof happiness. Implicit in this are the natural rights to self-defense, to make a living, and to own property. As Sam Adams, the Founding Father of the American revolution, said, “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”

That individuals form a government as a social compact to protect those inalienable rights from threats.

That on issues not affecting inalienable rights, government may exercise other just powers, primarily for the safety and stability of the society, but only by the consent of the people as expressed through a legitimate form of republican representation. Inherent in the principle of consent of the governed is that no outside forces not controlled by the members of that society itself may determine the destiny of the society.

That all human beings are created equal in access to and defense of those inalienable rights, not in societal outcomes, privileges, or other human pursuits, an ideal that would run counter to natural law. Also, implicit in the preamble is that all members of a given society are equal in the right to self-governance.

That when a long train of abuses and usurpations of these principles continues without any other recourse, the people have the right, indeed a duty, to rebel against the existing system.

Perhaps the most important principle established at the time was the right of the people who created the society to self-govern. As immortalized in the words of the Declaration itself, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The most important decision a society will ever make is whom they will accept as another member of that society, who in turn has a stake in determining the outcome of all the other major decisions.

This is why James Madison, in his 1835 essay on sovereignty, used the example of citizenship to explain how, in a republican society, decisions must flow with the consent of the people through their elected representatives. And there’s no greater decision for society than the future makeup of the society itself. Madison wrote, “In the case of naturalization a new member is added to the Social compact … by a majority of the governing body deriving its powers from a majority of the individual parties to the social compact.”

No foreigner or foreign entity can control the destiny of our nation and force upon us an outcome for citizenship, judicial standing, or any other benefit against the will of the president or Congress. It’s obvious that a country can never be forced to issue citizenship against its will, for if that were the case, it would cease to be a sovereign country “free from external control,” as the term is defined by Webster’s dictionary.

Yet here we are, fully one year into a crisis of one million aliens invading our border, all resulting from a single district judge, Dana Sabraw, erroneously ceded power by the other branches of government to throw out our immigration laws. Just last weekend, another district judge in California ruled that a president of the United States can’t even build a wall to keep some of them out.

Again, King George couldn’t hold a candle to the despotism we’ve allowed to flow from a few unelected California judges. This is worse than a constitutional violation. This is a violation of popular and territorial sovereignty, the most foundational principles established in the moral underpinning of the Declaration of Independence. Now, the judges are telling us that we can’t even conduct a census for the citizenry of this country and that, by default, hostile cartels can send millions of aliens into this country, force citizenship for their children upon us, and be counted in the census.

What we have today is the worst manifestation of Abraham Lincoln’s nightmare – the shredding of the right to self-govern as expressed by the Declaration of Independence he loved so much and sought to preserve. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln famously warned that “if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Today, we have every vital question that affects the whole of the people absolutely, irrevocably fixed by judges. Raise your hand if you’d rather have the Stamp Act by King George than every social transformation imaginable by a California judge!

But even though the degree of despotism today emanating from the judicial tribunal is worse than that of King George, the path to our new independence is much easier. For the cause of taxation without representation and establishing for the first time a government built upon popular sovereignty, our Founders were willing to “mutually pledge to each other” their “Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor.” We, on the other hand, need not risk “hanging separately” on the gallows, as Benjamin Franklin quipped at the time. Our Founders created other branches of government for a reason. In this case, it is the weakest branch from which the most mischief is flowing. All we need to do is to simply say no and use the arm of the executive branch of government. The president and the attorney general have a constitutional duty – indeed, they have an even more foundational duty mandated by the Declaration of Independence – to do so. Were they to simply push back against the eminent tribunal one time, it will become self-evident that the black robes don’t have nearly the power the redcoats did in the 1770s – unless of course we subjugate ourselves and give it to them for free.

A revolution for self-governance can free a people from the yoke of despotism by a monarch, but not even a revolution can free a people from self-subjugation. (For more from the author of “From the Redcoats to the Black Robes” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Is Still on Track to Win 2020

. . .I’m here to tell you that Trump is even closer to winning reelection now than he was at the end of last year. I am not alone in this observation. The Cook Political Report’s Amy Walter is seeing the playing field much the same way I am.

Heading into 2020, Trump’s primary strengths remain incumbency — since 1900, nearly 80 percent of incumbent presidents have been reelected — and the economy. Since FDR, every incumbent president, “who has avoided a recession in the lead-up to an election year was re-elected.” A trade truce or deal with China will most likely ensure a recession does not occur before next November.

Contrarians point to national polls and the slew of battleground state surveys, including Florida, and argue Trump is losing “bigly” to a handful of candidates and is therefore toast. The situation is certainly not ideal for Trump, but early polling from previous presidential tilts suggests the media and anti-Trump forces are getting way ahead of themselves. Who can forget that in June of 1983, eventual Democratic nominee Walter Mondale was leading President Ronald Regan by 10 points or that in June of 2011 a generic Republican presidential candidate was leading President Obama by 5 points? . . .

So what does Trump need to do to win reelection? His team can start by taking a page out of the 2012 Obama campaign playbook — and that is precisely what the Trump campaign is doing.

As Obama 2012 campaign aide Ben LaBolt points out, recent successful incumbent presidents prevailed “by executing a two-year campaign to exploit a contentious primary on the other side, reconnect with their base of supporters, and define the election as a choice, not a referendum.” After all, who can forget Mitt Romney being labeled a serial dog-abuser long before he received the 2012 Republican presidential nomination as a result of once taking a family trip with the dog riding in its crate on the car roof? (Read more from “Trump Is Still on Track to Win 2020” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Thomas Jefferson 50 Years After the Declaration: Never Forget What Independence Really Means

Every American should be aware of the famous words that Thomas Jefferson wrote for the Declaration of Independence in 1776. However, the lesser-known words that the elderly former president wrote for the document’s semicentennial celebration 50 years later still ring just as true for our grand experiment in human liberty today.

Jefferson had been invited to a special 50th anniversary celebration of the Declaration of Independence, but due to his poor health and age (he had just turned 83 a few months before), the document’s author wasn’t able to make the journey.

In his stead, he sent a meticulously written letter (his last public one) of thanks for the invitation to Washington, D.C., Mayor Roger Chew Weightman. In the now-famous letter, Jefferson says that being unable to attend makes his ailments even worse to bear, but also expresses his lasting hope that the American experiment will continue to be a beacon of liberty to people throughout the world, inspiring them “to assume the blessings & security of self government.”

“All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man,” Jefferson continues. “For ourselves, let the annual return of this day for ever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.”

And that’s exactly what Independence Day should really be about, folks.

Here’s the text of the letter in full:

Respected Sir,

The kind invitation I receive from you on the part of the citizens of the city of Washington, to be present with them at their celebration of the 50th. anniversary of American independance; as one of the surviving signers of an instrument pregnant with our own, and the fate of the world, is most flattering to myself, and heightened by the honorable accompaniment proposed for the comfort of such a journey. it adds sensibly to the sufferings of sickness, to be deprived by it of a personal participation in the rejoicings of that day. but acquiescence is a duty, under circumstances not placed among those we are permitted to controul. I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made. may it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government. that form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. all eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. the general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view. the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god. these are grounds of hope for others. for ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.

I will ask permission here to express the pleasure with which I should have met my ancient neighbors of the City of Washington and of it’s vicinities, with whom I passed so many years of a pleasing social intercourse; an intercourse which so much relieved the anxieties of the public cares, and left impressions so deeply engraved in my affections, as never to be forgotten. with my regret that ill health forbids me the gratification of an acceptance, be pleased to receive for yourself, and those for whom you write, the assurance of my highest respect and friendly attachments.

(For more from the author of “Thomas Jefferson 50 Years After the Declaration: Never Forget What Independence Really Means” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Well, Trump Just Won in 2020

I don’t know about you, but I’m feeling pretty good about the election after last week’s two-day Democratic clusterfark, and the president has got to be feeling pretty good too, since he just won it. Oh, we have 17 more months of media pimping of whichever commie candidate is currently the least embarrassing, but the debates made it very clear that Trump is going to be POTUS until Ric Grenell is on the victorious GOP ticket in 2024.

In the Dems’ defense, they do have an uphill battle. The economy is on fire, we’ve dodged all the new wars our garbage elite has proposed, Mueller (who went unmentioned) delivered only humiliation, and all 723 Democrats running are geebos. But say what you will, they are a diverse bunch in every way except thought – among the weirdos, losers and mutations onstage were a fake Indian, a furry, a guy so dumb he quotes Che in Miami, a raving weather cultist, America’s shrill first wife, a distinctly non-fabulous gay guy, T-Bone’s homie, whatever the hell Andrew Yang is, and Stevie Nicks.

But it was the thought part where they came together in a festival of insane acclamation. They agreed on everything, and it was all politically suicidal. Yeah, Americans are thrilled about the idea of subsidizing Marxist puppetry students and getting kicked off their health insurance so that they can put their lives in the hands of the people who brought you the DMV. . .

Currently, this minute, the Dems seem intent on nominating another strong, independent woman who would have been human wallpaper if she hadn’t hooked up with a potent Democrat male. Hillary had her Bill, at least once, and Kamala had her Willie Brown. Amusingly, after all their fussin’ and fumin’ about Trump’s lifestyle, the Demos are falling head over heels for a woman whose her career began as a mistress. But, of course. her situation was totally different. She’s a liberal. . .

Trump has to be ecstatic. These people are never going to beat him. Their entire platform consists of forcing Normal Americans to work so that the liberal elite can give free stuff to Democrat constituents and illegal aliens (of course, these categories form a single circle within the Venn diagram of who Democrats care about). They also want to ensure that the United States obeys the dictates of the transnational global elite when it comes to sucking up to those few foreigners who haven’t yet snuck in here for subsidized dental work. Yeah, Americans are totally going to applaud like the trained seals in the Colbert audience for reversing Trump’s policy of making the euroweenies pick up the tab for their own defense and for reinstating the Paris Accords, which means shipping cash to the Third World to somehow keep it from being a degree hotter in the year 2219. (Read more from “Well, Trump Just Won in 2020” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Will American Self-Government Fail?

The Fourth of July holiday celebrates the beginning of the American Revolution, not its successful conclusion. And yet we probably would never have heard of the Declaration of Independence or Thomas Jefferson if George Washington and his French allies had not defeated the British five years later.

There were fairweather patriots even then, opportunistic Americans with a wet finger always raised to the breeze. And so the British commander, Lord Cornwallis, picked up a lot of American volunteers in the Carolinas after he had some battlefield success against the patriots.

Cornwallis at Yorktown

But the British and their Loyalists were cornered and outnumbered at Yorktown, and the French fleet blocked any potential British naval attempt to break the siege.

Even in defeat, the haughty Royalists tried to dictate terms. At the ceremony of capitulation, the British general resisted any act of submission to Washington and attempted instead to surrender his sword to the French commander, Rochambeau.

But Rochambeau understood the political importance of the moment, shook his head, and refused the sword. He gestured toward Washington, whose right it was to accept the British surrender.

Washington, in turn, refused to take the British sword. Lord Cornwallis had sent a subordinate in his place, which compounded the insult. And so Washington called Gen. Benjamin Lincoln forward to receive the sword.

It was an amazing turnabout for Lincoln who, the previous year, had been forced to surrender Charleston and its 5,500 defenders to the British commander Henry Clinton. It reminds me of when Gen. Douglas MacArthur summoned an emaciated Gen. Jonathan Wainwright to the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri to take Japan’s surrender in 1945.

High and Mighty in Defeat

It’s not unprecedented for defeated generals to cling to grandiosity even in abject defeat. As the Civil War siege of Vicksburg dragged on, starving residents slaughtered their milk cows, then their horses and mules, then their dogs. Finally they were reduced to trapping and boiling rats. Confederate Gen. John Pemberton wrote his Union counterpart Ulysses Grant that he was prepared to hold out “indefinitely” against Grant’s siege.

But Grant had learned from captured soldiers and local civilians that Vicksburg was starving. It was here that he cemented his nickname “Unconditional Surrender” Grant, and he squeezed Vicksburg like a python until Pemberton surrendered the city and its garrison on Fourth of July.

Whether you’re a general or a monarch, you get accustomed to deference, to having your own way. You cease to think of your privileges and prestige as the outcome of negotiation. You certainly don’t think it’s up for a vote. But that’s true of all hyper-entitled people. They rarely respect the process enough to concede defeat in a fair fight. The only legitimate outcome, for them, is to win.

Respecting the People

America has, until recently, been an exception to that pattern. There is a lovely American political tradition of high-minded concession speeches. I still remember Jimmy Carter’s wise observation after Ronald Reagan defeated him in 1980 that “in a democracy, the people always win.”

Even Al Gore, not my favorite person, gave an honorable (if overdue) concession speech after the Supreme Court ruled against him in 2000. He joked that “it’s time for me to go,” which was funny because it’s the line he and Bill Clinton used against Republicans eight years earlier.

But America has changed. Many of our neighbors don’t respect election results anymore. When Donald Trump won in 2016, Democrats wanted to surrender their sword to John McCain, Jeb Bush, anybody but the guy who won the election.

Like the ragtag frontier militiamen who tamed the British infantry, we Deplorables are considered undeserving of sovereignty, unfit for self-government. American elites are frantically importing new Tories from the Third World to denounce us, to outvote us, to help them put down our rebellion. Now it’s we who are under siege.

Decency and Patriotism Under Siege

We may have to boil a few rats, but it’s our duty to outlast the siege. We do not have a right to surrender to these people who have malignant intentions for our grandchildren. It’s time to dig deep and call on the Spirit of ’76.

As Ben Franklin reportedly said that summer in Philadelphia, “we must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

America’s One Big Mistake in Afghanistan – Fighting the Wrong War

In his June 23, 2019 Military Times opinion article “America’s three big mistakes in Afghanistan,” Brig. Gen. Donald C. Bolduc (Ret) correctly noted three factors, which contributed to the pending U.S. defeat in Afghanistan:

“Misstep No. 1: The expansion of US forces and the introduction of large conventional units into the vast expanse of Afghanistan;

Misstep No. 2: Allowing the Taliban resurgence to occur in Afghanistan-2003-2009 and 2014-2019;

Misstep No. 3: Our inability to manage, let alone solve, Afghanistan’s illicit narcotics trade.”

Yet, none of those three could have been corrected or decisive while ignoring the geopolitical realities upon which an effective strategy is based.

That geopolitical reality is Pakistan, which has never shared the same objectives for Afghanistan as the U.S. and from which American strategic “mistakes” originated, those beyond the self-inflicted wounds of poor management and accountability, well-documented by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.

American military leaders consistently violated the most fundamental of strategic principles, ones taught at every U.S. war college, know your enemy and do not mistake a war for something that is alien to its nature.

The war in Afghanistan is not an insurgency. It is a proxy war being waged by Pakistan against the U.S. and Afghanistan.

Both the Pentagon and multiple U.S. political administrations have known from nearly the beginning of the conflict that an American victory in landlocked Afghanistan was impossible as long as Pakistan regulated the operational tempo by providing safe haven and support to its Taliban proxies and controlled the supply of our troops, critical factors which have never been adequately addressed.

Under such conditions, the application of counterinsurgency, which, I hasten to add, is a doctrine or collection of tactics, not a strategy, would ultimately be ineffective, whether executed by conventional or special forces. The same is true for counter-narcotics operations, where the trafficking of Afghan opium is largely occurring unimpeded through Pakistan.

Over nearly the entire course of the conflict, the U.S. supplied Pakistan with generous aid packages to bribe them from pursuing a course of action opposed to our own, but one Pakistan considered in its national interest. In essence, our leaders, through a combination of incompetence and indifference, allowed the United States to be defeated by Pakistan and paid them to do it.

Pakistanis now openly brag about it.

Shortly before his death in 2015, Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, the former head of Pakistan’s ISI, a committed Islamist and known as the “godfather of the Taliban,” said in an Urdu language television interview:

“One day, history will say that the ISI drove the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan with the help of USA and another sentence will be recorded that says the ISI drove the USA out of Afghanistan with the help of the USA.”

The Pakistani audience roared with laughter and applauded in approval.

The same pattern of duplicitous behavior by Pakistan has continued for seventeen years.

Late last year, during a Taliban attack on the Afghan provincial capital of Ghazni, large numbers of Pakistani nationals were found among the dead, presumably fighting with the Taliban. The bodies were subsequently returned to Pakistan.

In a recently released video, al Qaeda emphasizes its unity with Taliban and its role within the Taliban insurgency, as the jihadists, including Pakistanis, fight together to resurrect the Taliban’s Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

And yet American political leaders and senior military officers have done nothing, preferring to remain puzzled or cynical as to why we have not won in Afghanistan.

Despite Pakistani duplicity, Taliban safe havens in Pakistan remained largely untouched.

Pressure was never applied to Pakistan’s pain points, its moribund economy and financial insolvency and the existential threat of ethnic separatism, in particular among Pakistan’s Baloch and Pashtun populations.

An American withdrawal from Afghanistan will only be a humiliating defeat, if the U.S. is forced into strategic retreat from South Asia because we do not have a plan in place to address the changing regional conditions in a post-U.S. Afghanistan.

Fortunately, you can find such a new strategic plan here.

(Published in full with the permission of the author, find the original posting HERE)
_________________________________________

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired US Army Reserve colonel, an international IT businessman and a veteran of Afghanistan, Iraq and a humanitarian mission to West Africa. He receives email at [email protected] and can be found on Twitter @LawrenceSellin.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE