Conservatives Should Be Wary About Dangling Amnesty for Partial Wall Funding

Conservatives need to be very cautious when contemplating the president’s offer to Democrats, which includes amnesty in exchange for mere border funding and no critical policy changes. The president might have one intention or strategy in mind, but the majority of Senate Republicans love amnesty in its own right, even without anything in return. Consequently, any rush to begin negotiating down can lead to a slippery slope into the abyss of open borders.

Senators have spent the past month doing nothing. They could have forced Democrats to hold the floor and continuously force procedural votes on numerous bills placing them in vulnerable positions. They could have voted on legislation cutting off funding to sanctuary cities, ending the border loopholes, and ending welfare for illegal aliens. But no. They did nothing. Now they plan to bring an amnesty bill to the floor, at the behest of President Trump.

On Saturday, Trump offered Democrats the following in return for $5.7 billion in border funding and some funding for technology, more border agents, and immigration judges:

A three-year extension of work permits for Obama’s illegal DACA amnesty affecting roughly 700,000 illegal aliens.

A three-year extension of TPS amnesty for roughly 300,000 illegals who abused the TPS system from Guatemala, Honduras, and Haiti.

There is nothing so permanent as a temporary amnesty. Trump promised to end these amnesties, and this is the last stop on the train. Nobody can say with a straight face that once this is extended for three years, it won’t become permanent.

Trump is already negotiating with himself in public:

There are plenty of people both in the White House and in the Senate who are desperate to end the shutdown and are desperate for DACA amnesty. Conservatives must hold the right flank and ensure that this doesn’t spiral out of control.

I’ve already explained why, as a matter of policy, such a deal is worse than nothing. Amnesty for the gradual construction of a partial border wall and more agents and immigration judges to manage the invasion, not block it, is no deal at all. Trump himself rightfully said this last year:

The border wall is like a bandage, while the asylum, UAC, Flores, and other judicial magnets are the actual wound. It’s shocking that those universally understood flaws in our system were never even put on the table for this negotiation. Absent the closing of those loopholes, a partial wall is worthless.

The problem with an amnesty-driven negotiation

Some have suggested that Trump understands Democrats would never take this deal, and therefore he is just exposing their radical position. Fine. But then once they reject it, this should be the end of amnesty discussions. Trump needs to go back to talking only about the harms of illegal immigration and how DACA caused this border crisis. DACA is not the solution; it’s the problem.

The concern is that once Trump officially blesses the idea of amnesty in this context, Senate Republicans will run with this. They will allow Democrats to negotiate down further, and we’ll be left with a few billion dollars, no policy changes to fix a policy problem, and a new amnesty.

Here’s how this would look.

McConnell is bringing this proposal to the Senate floor this week. Of course, he is also adding on $12 billion more in disaster aid, after we’ve already spent close to $100 billion in extra disaster aid over the past year. No legislative proposal is complete without more spending.

It’s still unclear whether enough Democrats would vote for this proposal. If they vote it down, then Trump should go nuclear on them, back off all amnesty, and threaten to use his lawful powers to deploy the military and build bases, infrastructure, and walls in support of a more robust military operation that we need at our border anyway.

But here is the concern if conservatives are not cautious in setting red lines on this deal. Schumer might possibly allow seven or so Democrats to vote the bill out of the Senate. Then, Pelosi, with a simple majority, adds a more robust amnesty that is more palatable to all Democrats (quietly knowing that most Senate Republicans want it too). Then it passes the Senate again. Democrats know that Trump so badly wants “the wall” that he might take amnesty and no policy changes so long as he can say he got wall funding. Then we will be left with 230 miles of gradually constructed wall in exchange for immediate amnesty.

House Republicans already voted for a bare-bones DACA extension last year, but that was in return for a Christmas tree of everything conservatives want on immigration: end of all border and interior magnets, stepped-up deportations, end to sanctuaries, abolishing chain migration, and much more. Any amnesty for a few billion dollars in the context of a policy problem is a terrible trade.

The worst of all worlds

This is the opening bid, so we know it will get much worse. But even if this plan got enacted as is, it would be worse than nothing. Not a single policy that is currently inducing this wave of family units would be changed. The tide would only grow, because now there is the perception that more people will get amnesty if they successfully make their way here and obtain the benefits of catch-and-release. Moreover, the fact that more money will go into a border wall will create an even greater rush to benefit from the widening of the “child magnet” before the window of the border wall closes.

But since this is not the full border wall, the cartels will still harness the catch-and-release policies to get around the new construction. Jaeson Jones, who served for over two decades in the Texas Department of Public Safety’s Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division, fears this half-baked approach will further empower the cartels. “The belief that a partial wall will stop human smuggling and the trafficking crisis at our southwest border is wrong,” said the retired captain and expert on drug cartels. “It is another example of our government underestimating the capabilities of the Mexican cartels. The cartels will simply build infrastructure on the Mexico side to reach areas where the wall is not present.”

Jones noted that there is precedent for this. Walls definitely work, but they must come as part of a holistic approach of de-magnetizing the border. “In 1993, El Paso, Texas, created Operation Hold the Line, where they utilized a wall and agents to make apprehensions of anyone who attempted to climb over. As a result, apprehensions were reduced by over 70 percent. However, the areas where I worked as a Texas Highway Patrolman outside the boundaries of the wall, all the smuggling occurred. The areas became crime-ridden. Later, the wall would be extended, reaching well beyond the city limits of El Paso, once again pushing human smuggling and trafficking further out into the nearby county of Hudspeth County, Texas, as we see it today.”

In other words, doing half construction with even bigger incentives for amnesty is the worst of all worlds. We need to build the full wall and close the lawfare loopholes giving the cartels these clients to begin with. It’s better to do nothing and live to fight another day than to gradually construct a partial fence in this legal environment at the border. This is why we are seeing hundreds of people come to open areas in the fencing to surrender themselves. The courts are even giving standing to people to sue for entry from outside of the country, even where there is a wall blocking them.

Finally, it’s important to keep in mind that walls worked great during the Mexican wave of migration because Mexicans didn’t want to get caught by Border Patrol. Thus, a wall slows them down and makes it almost impossible for them to get over undetected, even if they have the wherewithal to scale the wall. The problem with the current Central American wave driven by lawfare is that they want to get caught so they can surrender themselves to agents. This is why we are now seeing the cartels help drop kids over border fences, including the much vaunted 18-foot fence in Yuma.

Already in November, we saw this growing trend of family units coming over the fence. At the time, I spoke with Sheriff Leon Wilmot of Yuma County, and he was frustrated that everyone is missing the point about the lawfare. “We already have a fence here, and it worked fine during Operation Streamline last decade, when we prosecuted 100 percent of the border crossers rather than processing them. But now they are just hanging off the fence and surrendering themselves to border agents.” He told me about women “dropping babies off the fence” and breaking limbs. His sheriff’s deputies must deal with the medical emergencies. “None of these folks are being prosecuted. My deputies are the ones who have to take those rape and robbery reports because the feds refuse to do their jobs.”

Wilmot and other border sheriffs strongly back the president’s call for a border wall, but the wall must be backed by a deterrent not to enter the country. Doubling down on amnesty without closing loopholes and ramping up prosecutions will only encourage the cartels to create more infrastructure for the lawfare to supersede the wall. A wall can stop a physical invasion, but it can’t stop a judicial invitation to come here with kids and get amnesty. (For more from the author of “Conservatives Should Be Wary About Dangling Amnesty for Partial Wall Funding” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Here’s How to Win the Shutdown Fight

. . .The President can start going into swing districts the Democrats just won and pointing out the Democrats went to the beach while he was trying to reopen the government and the face of the Democrats wants to abolish ICE.

President Trump has largely been off the campaign trail and in Washington because of the shutdown. He had not wanted to go out. But now he needs to hit the campaign trail. He can legitimately say he was going to stay in DC and even gave up Christmas in Florida. But now the Democrats are out saying we need to abolish ICE and they’ve decided to take a beach vacation during the shutdown.

President Trump needs to get out and make the case. He needs to make the case that Democrats have previously voted for what he is proposing. He needs to make the case that his $5 billion is not just for a wall, but for more border patrol agents, more ICE agents, more immigration judges, improvements to facilities for people seeking asylum.

President Trump needs to go into these swing districts and do local news interviews. The national press is completely in the tank for the Democrats. Local reporters are not. The President can, in person or via satellite, do in-person interviews with local reporters in local areas. Go into the Pittsburgh area. Tell the local reporters how many illegal immigrants are in the area and that the newly elected Democrat from that area is opposed to securing the border.

Crisscross the country and tell Americans that the President would have stayed in Washington, but the Democrats went to the beach and he wants the public to hear from him. Attack the national press for carrying water for the Democrats on the issue and contrast their attitude to the attitude of local reporters. (Read more from “Here’s How to Win the Shutdown Fight” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Why Shouldn’t President Trump Reconsider NATO?

The New York Times reported late Monday that President Trump discussed pulling the United States out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), citing anonymous administration officials.

“There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years,” the Times says in breaking the old news that President Trump has floated the idea of pulling out of NATO.

A predictable mass of #resist media figures, politicians, pundits, and television personalities have responded by declaring that the president’s internal deliberations amount to a criminal act and an obvious impeachable defense. Others have cited the president’s reported comments about NATO as clear evidence that he is a Russian agent.

This is all nonsense. Now is a great time to debate NATO’s future. Politicians and media pundits who say otherwise — and use the “but Putin!” veto — are not serious thinkers and fail to recognize the realities of our changing world. Here’s why:

NATO may have outlived its purpose

NATO was founded in 1949 for the purpose of stopping communist expansion backed by the Soviet Union and its satellite states. The Soviet Union has been destroyed, and Russia, though a nuclear-armed state, does not present a global threat equivalent to that of the USSR.

NATO has not stopped our current NATO allies from cozying up to Vladimir Putin’s regime. In fact, Germany, France, and other NATO allies have been all too eager to embrace the Russian president and bolster economic ties with Moscow.

The United States has remained steadfast to NATO. We are not the problem. Our European allies (plus Canada and Turkey) have failed to live up to their commitments to NATO. All too often, the U.S. is shouldering the entire burden of the NATO alliance.

Sure, Russia may be better geopolitically positioned if NATO ceases to exist. But to accuse President Trump of being a Russian agent because he has been frustrated by the weaknesses of NATO is the height of absurdity. The U.S. president should always prioritize the American citizen, not make decisions solely based on whether or not the move is good or bad for Russia.

Our NATO allies are failing to live up to their defense obligations

Perhaps President Trump’s biggest frustration with NATO is the reality that our supposed partners have been taking advantage of the U.S. commitment to the alliance. The president is right when he says the NATO status quo is screwing over American citizens. The United States taxpayer is on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars of military spending each year, a lot of which goes into maintaining global stability. Yet our wealthy European allies largely fail to contribute their fair share to defense spending.

Only five NATO member states (the United States, United Kingdom, Estonia, Poland, and Greece) met a two percent or more defense spending threshold in 2017. Other NATO members, such as Germany, Spain, Italy, Canada, and many others have not even come close to meeting their defense obligations. Worse, some countries won’t even consider enacting a real plan to get to two percent. Berlin claims to be taking NATO seriously, floating a plan to get to 1.5 percent by the middle of the next decade. That’s not nearly enough for the wealthiest nation in Europe, which has prioritized social welfare programs over defense.

The president has successfully leveraged NATO allies to do more

While the media commentariat is shouting from the rooftops that President Trump is surely a Russian agent and must be impeached and convicted of criminal activity for discussing NATO’s merits, the commander in chief has actually forced our NATO allies to become more accountable to NATO’s mission.

In July, NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg announced that he expected eight countries (up from five in 2017) to meet the two percent defense spending threshold in 2018.

Without President Trump constantly banging the drum on this issue, there is simply no way our NATO partners would find the initiative to bolster their defense spending.

POTUS has long been a skeptic of the NATO alliance.

The New York Times report is hardly a bombshell. The president has viewed NATO as an “obsolete” institution or one that needs massive reform for many years. In 2016 foreign policy campaign debates and through his tenure as commander in chief, President Trump discussed at length NATO’s weaknesses and used these shortcomings to demand more from our NATO allies.

NATO may rope us into unnecessary conflict

When a NATO member invokes Article 5 of NATO’s collective defense agreement, all NATO member countries are asked to join the country and contribute military forces to this effort. Now, given the reality that the Turkish regime under President Erdogan is a NATO member, is the United States prepared to join one of the world’s leading pro-terrorist regimes in a bombing campaign against our Kurdish allies?

That is not a mere hypothetical. Erdogan has openly declared that he has considered invoking Article 5 over the conflict in Syria.

Moreover, as a NATO member, Turkey has privileged access to highly sensitive information that is shared by our allies. Turkey has already abused this privilege and threatened to disclose the positions of U.S. special operations forces operating in the Middle East.

What does the Constitution say?

Does the president have the unilateral authority to pull us out of NATO? This is where it gets tricky. Unlike the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accord, NATO is a treaty that was ratified by the Senate. The Constitution does not say anything about leaving treaties. Past Presidents Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush have unilaterally withdrawn from treaties, but the Supreme Court refused to take up the case in both instances.

The bottom line

Our NATO partners are not living up to their defense commitments, and the U.S. picking up the tab for rich European countries is placing an enormous burden on the American taxpayer. Given the situation with an increasingly radicalizing Turkey, NATO could potentially entangle the United States in a conflict that is against our interests. Questions about NATO’s purpose in the 21st century are absolutely fair game for debate. NATO “allies” are embracing our adversaries and failing to hold up their end of the bargain.

And a final reminder: There is zero evidence of Russian collusion. People who use the president’s NATO comments as proof that he is a Russian agent are not playing with a full deck. There is zero evidence that President Trump has any ties to Russia, unless you count a proposed hotel deal that ended up going nowhere. The collusion delusion must end, so that we can get back to having discussions about real American foreign policy priorities, which includes debating the future of NATO. (For more from the author of “Why Shouldn’t President Trump Reconsider NATO?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

3 Reasons Why the Media’s ‘Walls Won’t Work to Stop Drugs’ Argument Is Wrong

Prescription painkiller deaths are responsible for only a small portion of drug deaths and almost none of the epidemic-level increase since 2014. Yet Congress was willing to regulate the heck out of prescriptions in order to address the epidemic. But when it comes to illicit drugs, which are doing most of the drug killing and are almost all coming in from the Mexican drug cartels and their criminal alien syndicates, suddenly the political class has no interest in solutions unless you can prove that it will stop 100 percent of the problem.

Last year, Congress held endless hearings, wrote copious reports, and passed dozens of bills misdiagnosing the poly-drug crisis, its nature, and its source. They spent billions of dollars funding unproven addiction treatment programs while regulating prescription painkillers. Then they passed a bill with endless leniencies for drug traffickers. To the extent they ever spoke about illicit drugs, they focused on China and the dark web, but would never mention the word Mexico or the southern border, where almost all of the drugs are brought into the country. They were willing to do everything that, in their mind, would mitigate the emergency epidemic, even when they went after the wrong source. Now that we’ve successfully exposed the authentic source of the crisis – the Mexican border and lack of interior enforcement against cartel distributors in America – Congress is suddenly not interested in doing anything unless it’s a bulletproof end-all solution.

Now that the media finally has been forced to admit that the source of the drug problem is the Mexican cartels, the same evil terrorist groups orchestrating the flow of illegal immigration, leftists have a new talking point. They contend that almost all of the drugs come through the points of entry and not in between the points, thereby making a wall completely irrelevant to mitigating the drug trafficking problem. This talking point is part of a general trend where they magnify the problem beyond the solution of the wall. For example, after calling us kooks for years when we warned that the most brutal cartels were digging tunnels into our territory, the media is now admitting this is indeed taking place in order to, in their minds, diminish the efficacy of the wall as a solution.

But this in itself is a self-indictment of their refusal to deal with the problem through the years. Really? So, this is even worse than what a wall can solve? All the more so this should be treated as a national emergency, then. We should be sending our military over the Rio Grande to fight these terror groups.

This new alarmist argument that a wall is ineffective to combat the cartels is ludicrous for a number of reasons.

1. The wall as a force multiplier to effectively channel resources: Before I explain how drugs are pouring through between points of entry, it’s important to understand that having substantial barriers rather than an open frontier in many areas allows our agents to place their resources more in points of entry to interdict the drugs. The same thing applies to their argument about tunnels. It’s sure a lot easier to detect the tunnels and drones, as well as the criminal activity at the points of entry, when the agents are not completely shut down by thousands of bogus asylum seekers every day coming in between the points of entry. With that chaos successfully blocked by the wall, the agents can focus all their attention on the criminal activities of the cartels rather than serving as babysitters and field hospitals between the points of entry.

2. Drugs absolutely pour in between the points of entry: The reason the media is asserting that most drugs come in at the points of entry is not because they know it to be true, but because most of the drug seizures occur at the points of entry. But that outcome is dictated by pure common sense. While the cartels do succeed in getting drugs in at the points of entry, it’s obvious that we have the most success in detecting drugs in this carefully controlled environment. While in the hundreds of miles of open frontier, the cartels get the drugs in un-interdicted at all, we catch a lot of their contraband at the checkpoints. On the other hand, we likely only catch an infinitesimal amount of drugs in between the points of entry.

The most important fact about the border the media is obfuscating is that the cartels control the entire flow of migrants precisely so they can strategically tie down our agents with a humanitarian crisis while they confidently bring in drugs, gangs, criminals, cartel enforcers, and special interest aliens with the full confidence that no agents will be present in the gaps they tactically created. As Brandon Judd, the president of the National Border Council, explained to me last year, “The cartels flood the metropolitan areas with more family units than we have resources to deal with, causing us to move resources from rural areas, thereby creating the gaps that allow them to move more valuable products like illicit narcotics and criminal aliens. It’s sort of like a game of football.”

Why do you think the volume and widespread availability of lethal illicit drugs spiked to epidemic levels suddenly in 2013-2015 with the rise of the Central American teens and again with the flow of the family units? They all came in between the points of entry, not at the points of entry. Many of the UACs served as drug runners.

Jaeson Jones, who commanded a group of Texas Rangers dealing with this precise problem at the time, told me it’s laughable to suggest the cartels aren’t bringing in drugs between the points of entry. “Most unaccompanied alien children enter our country between the points of entry,” said the retired captain, who spent 24 years with the Texas Department of Public Safety focusing on counterterrorism and counter-narcotics at our border. “Every day, these teens and young adults are forced into human trafficking, human smuggling, and drug trafficking in order to pay their way to be smuggled into the United States by the cartels.”

The cartels knew that we never prosecute teens on drug charges at the federal level and therefore deliberately used them to bring in drugs. As Jeff Sessions said last June, “These drug cartels know our laws and take advantage of our generosity. They are only too happy to use children to smuggle their drugs as well.” Those kids who help smuggle humans and drugs because of our lenient laws are referred to as polleritos.

Many of them also went on to fuel the gang crisis as well. Gangs are now the distributors of these drugs. So, the invasion of UACs – yes, between the points of entry – thanks to a lack of a standing deterrent is really two for the price of one in fueling the drug crisis.

Moreover, Jones told me his officers have been dealing with a long-standing problem of the cartels recruiting dual U.S.-Mexican citizens in middle and high schools on our side of the border to smuggle drugs across the border. “For the last decade across the southwest border, America’s youth have become the ideal smuggler for the Mexican cartels. The cartels have learned that U.S. prosecutors in most cases will either not prosecute or will be very lenient involving juvenile smuggling offenses. We must protect our youth from the Mexican cartels.”

Again, this was occurring between the points of entry just as much as at the points of entry, and it is a crisis that will be mitigated by the construction of a wall, among other assists needed at the border.

In July 2018, the DEA started a new program in San Diego to combat the cartels recruiting in schools on our side of the border to smuggle drugs in both in cars and on foot. It’s no wonder a local San Diego station accused CNN of losing interest in interviewing their reporters after they expressed their educated view that barriers at the border work.

3. Interior enforcement is even more important to stopping drugs, but Dems oppose that even more strongly. Democrats are not wrong when they assert that not all problems will be addressed by the wall. The problem is that is a further indictment of their visceral opposition to interior enforcement and deportations. Sure, the cartels will always be able to find ways to get some drugs into our country. But merely getting drugs past the border is not their goal. Their ultimate goal is establishing profitable networks that can operate in our major cities undetected in perpetuity. That is absolutely impossible without sanctuary cities.

As I’ve noted in my series on sanctuary cities and the drug crisis, the drug crisis reached epidemic levels during Obama’s second term, right as he began dismantling interior enforcement and sanctuary politics took over in major metro areas. All of the organizational trafficking is from foreign nationals. It’s bad enough that American drug traffickers barely serve any jail time any more and are back on the streets in no time. But criminal aliens, who, again, control all the primary-level trafficking, can and should be deported. We don’t need to land convictions; we just need to bust up their networks and get them out of here.

This also ties in to the new Democrat talking point about half of illegal immigration stemming from visa overstays. They are exactly right! So many of the Dominicans fueling the drug crisis in New England fly into Logan Airport with false Puerto Rican identities. If we actually got tough on interior enforcement, it would solve both the illegal immigration and the drug problem.

Yes, we need both border and interior enforcement. Yet, Democrats, because their border denialism has been discredited, must resort to a cat-and-mouse game of “No, this is not the problem, the other issue not directly before us now is the real problem … except we oppose action on that too.”

Finally, you know what is even more effective than both border walls and deportations? Actually making illegal immigration illegal and not incentivizing it with all sorts of magnets and benefits. This is really a very easy issue to solve. In life, there are can’ts and there are won’ts. When it comes to protecting our sovereignty and security from external threats, there are no can’ts. It’s all won’ts. (For more from the author of “3 Reasons Why the Media’s ‘Walls Won’t Work to Stop Drugs’ Argument Is Wrong” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Why Trump Will Win the Shutdown

By The Federalist. Compromise. It’s a word President Trump used several times yesterday. He is open to compromise. In this case, that means something short of the $5 billion he wants for a border wall. He’s open to taking less, perhaps in exchange for not applying the law to younger illegal immigrants. This is clearly the easiest way out of the current debacle. But it is something the Democrats, led by “No Wall” Nancy Pelosi, have said they will never support.

This is a problem. Democrats have backed themselves up against a, well, a wall. They have created a situation in which if they give even one dollar to Trump to build a wall, or fence, steel barrier, or whatever, they have lost the political fight. Pelosi, the great speaker of the House who gets things done, has left herself no leverage to get anything done. She could ask for almost anything in exchange for wall funding, but instead, she won’t budge.

Trump is channeling his inner Michael Corleone and telling Democrats that his offer is this: nothing, not even the price of the border wall, which he would appreciate Pelosi appropriating. So here we are.

We all like to knock and mock Trump’s braggadocio claims that he is the best negotiator ever. But in this case, he really has outflanked his opponents. Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have painted themselves into a corner. They have said, “No funding for a wall.” They say this despite the fact that they have supported barrier funding in the past. So in essence they have given themselves no fallback position. . . .

A president always has an advantage in a government shutdown. The executive branch speaks with a single voice, while Congress is divided between parties. Trump is clearly pointing to and offering a solution. The House Democrats aren’t. And their intransigence is highlighted by the fact that Republican members of Congress are calling them out. (Read more from “Why Trump Will Win the Shutdown” HERE)

____________________________________________

Trump Urged to Temporarily Reopen Government

By BBC. A senior US Republican has urged President Donald Trump to temporarily reopen parts of the government shut down for more than three weeks.

Senator Lindsey Graham, who is close to Mr Trump, said a limited re-opening of a few weeks would allow talks to resume between Republicans and Democrats.

The partial government shutdown has now become the longest in US history.

It has left hundreds of thousands of public workers unpaid and government offices closed.

President Trump is refusing to approve a budget unless it includes $5.7bn (£4.5bn) for a wall along the Mexican border – a key campaign pledge, which the president said that Mexico would pay for. (Read more from “Trump Urged to Temporarily Reopen Government” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

A Media That Twists Facts to Demean President Trump

The news coverage of the border crisis and President Trump’s speech to the nation proves the agenda-driven media can be the enemy of the people.

The left-wing media is so intent on destroying President Trump that it enthusiastically twists and manipulates facts without any regard for the consequences of an insecure border to Americans or the damage of harming the credibility of the president.

Before and after President Trump’s speech, the anti-Trump media was actively trying to undermine the president. The talking heads on MSNBC led the way. The morning before the nationwide address, “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski wanted to silence President Trump by urging networks not to broadcast the prime-time address because they were confident the president was going to lie.

“Why in the world would the networks run Donald Trump’s address tonight when we know that Donald Trump is going to be using it to spread these lies?” asked Scarborough.

Brzezinski passionately responded, “Do they want to run the promise of more lies, more misleading statistics, more twisting of reality, mindless confrontation, all for the sake of defending Trump’s dark, twisted fantasy of a wall on the Mexican border to fight an enemy that doesn’t exist, except in the most fevered swamps of American politics — do they want to do that for ratings?”

She added that “the networks should refuse to turn over the airwaves to Donald Trump tonight for what they know, objectively, to be a steady stream of lies.”

The MSNBC segment on the president’s address the following morning opened with a video montage mocking him. The editors used a series of video clips from a rally speech where the president was joking about being presidential, and after each joke, they spliced in video from the president’s nationwide address from the Oval Office. Pure propaganda, with the goal of demeaning President Trump.

The remainder of the segment was a discussion. The co-hosts and assembled anti-Trump cheerleaders reiterated the conclusion from the morning before, that the speech did not merit a prime-time address and did not justify the wall. Notably absent was any identification of the “steady stream of lies” that Brzezinski was so confident would be delivered.

MSNBC was not alone in the effort to demean President Trump. The Washington Post had a “fact-checker” standing by to analyze statements made by the president.

During the address, President Trump said 266,000 aliens were arrested “with criminal records” during the last two years. The fact-checker determined the arrest “numbers add up” but said the statistic was misleading because it “includes all types of crimes, including nonviolent offenses such as illegal entry or reentry.”

So even when the president is correct, he is wrong, because according to The Washington Post, a crime is only a crime when it is violent. The “analysis” did not disprove the number of “charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 violent killings.”

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) fiscal year 2018 report provides a list of charges and convictions from arrests, including 80,730 DUIs, 76,585 dangerous drugs, and 50,753 assault.

The statement that President Trump made that Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., voted for a “physical barrier” before he was president was also a problem for the fact-checker. That too was misleading because “the fence they voted for is not as substantial as the wall Trump is proposing.”

Wrong. During the speech, President Trump stated he would yield the concrete wall for a “steel barrier.”

The fact-checker also challenged the president’s statement that 90 percent of heroin comes from the southern border. The focus of the challenge was that “virtually all of it comes through legal points of entry” and not between the ports of entry. The fact-checker concluded that therefore “Trump’s wall would do little to halt drug trafficking.”

Wrong. While it’s true that nine times the amount of heroin comes through the ports of entry as between the entry points, a significant amount of dangerous drugs gets into the U.S. around the ports of entry. In fiscal year 2018, the Border Patrol seized 10,382 pounds of methamphetamine, 6,423 pounds of cocaine and 332 pounds of fentanyl — over an eighty percent increase from the prior year.

Keep in mind these are the drugs that were seized. Who knows how many pounds escaped border agents?

Just on the basis of drugs brought in and crimes committed by illegal aliens, there is a border crisis. By mocking President Trump and twisting the facts to minimize the security risk to Americans from a porous border shows the media can be the enemy of the people. (For more from the author of “A Media That Twists Facts to Demean President Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Dark Arts of the Press Are on Full Display

How remarkable that the same press that obsessed Donald Trump straight into the White House has doubled down once he was there, to the point that the former editor of the New York Times called them out on it a few days ago. And it’s now going full Voldemort — “he who shall not be named” — when it comes to Trump’s Oval Office speech to the country.

And when I say remarkable, I mean totally predictable. Because journalism is magical and not at all broken.

Don Lemon at CNN. Mika at MSNBC. Don’t even run the president’s speech on our networks, they say. Or at the very least delay it so that we can get our, ahem, “fact-checking” underway. So much is at stake, they say.

For example, says Lemon, “people will believe [Trump].” And that. Can’t. Happen.

I mean, he’s Voldemort, remember. You can’t let his “propaganda” go unchecked, says Lemon. Because a man who said he wouldn’t even shake Trump’s hand if presented with the opportunity probably has the market cornered on objectivity.

This is bigger than just Lemon and Mika, though. They’re legion. The number of people in media who resent that we live in a representative republic that must endeavor to put the people’s legitimate desires first, no matter who the president might be, is far, far greater than the number of Constitution-loving people in the U.S. Congress, which is supposed to be serving those interests.

Not good. It’s a swarm of locusts vs. a single can of bug spray.

Such collective drunkenness now has the press inferring out loud that the people are simply too dumb to be left to their own devices. And that the president they elected is simply too terrible to even be listened to on two issues — the government shutdown and immigration — of obvious national importance. And that a properly ordered society, even if it isn’t remotely the form of social contract we actually live under, should depend on a bunch of unelected elites like the press and judges and scientists and Hollywood stars to tell the plebes when it’s time to jump and how high.

Good grief, people. It’s far past time to wake up to the consequences of all this. Because if the press believes it is this reasonable to consider muting the voice of a sitting president of the United States simply because they disagree with him, what do you think they are doing every other day of the week when it comes to shaping the narratives of the day?

The press thinks it is supposed to be deciding what the conversation is, and it is deeply wrong about that. Dangerously wrong. This is a country by, for, and of the people, led in part by an executive branch, whether it be Democrat or Republican or Trumpian, that is entitled to address the country from time to time as it sees fit.

That’s not remotely debatable to anyone who isn’t, quite frankly, an enemy of liberty. That’s not Trump. He’s got a lot of problems, but that’s not one of them.

He’s not Voldemort. But the press? They clearly know a thing or two about the dark arts. (For more from the author of “The Dark Arts of the Press Are on Full Display” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

No, Senate Apportionment Is Not White Supremacy

This week the Atlantic ran an article by Eric Orts, arguing for a major change in how seats to the U.S. Senate are apportioned. Like many others, he believes that small states have too much power in our legislative upper body. This idea floats around a lot, especially when Republicans control the Senate. Instead, he would give every state one senator to start with, then apportion the rest based on population. California, for example, would have 12, while Rhode Island would have 1.

Let’s set aside the broad arguments about this issue, such as the fact that limiting the power of the larger, more powerful states was a feature, not a bug of the U.S. Constitution, and that in all likelihood the plan Orts lays out violates that document. Charles Cooke has a good takedown in National Review Online that is worth reading. . .

I’d like to investigate just one of the claims Orts makes. In the essay, he contends that the Senate’s two per state apportionment is a “vehicle entrenching white supremacy.” His argument is that because most small states are predominantly white, white voters are being overrepresented. He views this not only as an example of white supremacy, but one that works to ensure the permanence of white supremacy. But is that true? . . .

Unfortunately, the assumption underlying Orts’ argument is an ugly one. His claim only works if it is true that, either consciously or unconsciously, white voters favor politicians and programs that are better for white people and that this preference for white supremacy is an essential element in how they vote. If this were true, however, wouldn’t we see white voters overwhelmingly flock to the political party that best supported these supposedly white supremacist policies?

In fact, we see exactly the opposite. According to Pew, 33 percent of whites are Republicans, 26 percent are Democrats, and 37 percent are Independents. If white people really are voting based on the interests of their racial group, they certainly can’t seem to agree what positions and policies best advance them. Apparently white voters in tiny Delaware, who elected Democrats Chris Coons and Tom Carper, have very different ideas about what is best for white people than do those in Wyoming, who elected Republicans John Barrasso and Mike Enzi. (Read more from “No, Senate Apportionment Is Not White Supremacy” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Border Invasion Intensifies, While Congressional Republicans Sleep

There’s nothing as righteous as a Republican Party out of power and in the minority. Yet even in their newfound minority status, seven Republicans managed to join the Democrats in passing a budget bill continuing to fund the invasion at our southern border rather than stopping it. Every single Democrat without exception – including those from more conservative districts who promised to work across the aisle – voted for the Democrat budget bill, which funds international abortions but not border security.

How is it that we have an invasion at our border that single-handedly fueled the drug crisis, created gang and cartel violence in our communities, and burdened us with the crushing fiscal costs, yet Republicans won’t effectively force a national discussion on this issue? Increasingly, drugs are connecting to terrorism, and they are all being pushed into our communities by the most violent gangs and cartels. Then there is the problem of the public health crisis. Illegal immigration sits at the nexus of everything that is dangerous and everything against which the federal government was created to protect us. Why is there no leading voice in either body of Congress on this issue?

The answer, very simply put, is that the party doesn’t care. The GOP hates its base. That is why Trump is going to need to step up his game and give televised addresses to the nation every few days while traveling the country giving speeches, not just at the border, but in cities inside our country that have been devastated by illegal immigration.

Last night, Breitbart reported that ICE and Border Patrol were forced to release another 2,000 illegal aliens into our country because there is no more detention space thanks to the intensity of the invasion. The danger to our country is unfathomable when you consider that the last major surge in 2014 unleashed the worst drug and gang crisis in our history on our country.

As the Texas Department of Public Safety reported, “The increase of illegal alien gang members crossing the border into Texas among unaccompanied minors the previous year… positioned the gang as one of the state’s most significant gang threats.” According to both the DEA and the Texas DPS, these aliens smuggled in by the cartels expanded the transnational street gangs in our city that serve as the retail distributors for various cartels.

Every wonder why Chicago is experiencing more violence than usual since Obama’s second-term immigration policies? Most of the extra violence there is not the result of the domestic gangs, but the transnational gangs working for the cartels and nourished by our border and sanctuary policies. “The Mexican cartels provide a steady stream of drugs to the Chicago area. Though the Sinaloa Cartel and CJNG are the city’s most notable sources of supply, other Mexican cartels that deliver drugs to the area include BLO, the Gulf Cartel, La Familia Michoacán (LFM), and Los Guerreros Unidos (LGU),” wrote DEA officials in their brand-new threat assessment report. “Chicago is home to several street gangs that are heavily involved in drug distribution, and collectively these gangs serve as the primary mid-level and retail-level drug distributors for the cartels.”

What else? “These gangs are also responsible for a substantial portion of the city’s violent crime.”

The type of crime we are now seeing across the country is a sign that the most brutal cartel violence has already crept into America. Derek Maltz, former head of the DEA’s Special Operations Division, told me that he was seeing this trend already toward the end of his career during the Obama era, and the violence from the cartels was as “ruthless” as anything he saw. “Mexican cartels have exported their evil, violent, and radical tactics into the communities of America. They have no concern for innocent citizens when they are trying to carry out their drug operations,” said the veteran DEA agent in an exclusive interview with CR. “We have seen incredible cartel-on-cartel violence in cities all over America. Humans are burned, shot, stabbed, and tortured, and there is no regard for human life.”

But there is no passion from Republicans on this issue. Where are the op-eds, speeches on the Senate floor, bills being proposed? Why, to this day, are Senate Republicans refusing to force votes on the Senate floor on cutting off magnets for criminal aliens, identity fraud, sanctuary cities, and asylum fraud? Why are they not forcing Democrats to hold the floor and sustain a talking filibuster?

Unfortunately, we have negative energy among Republicans. Sens. Susan Collins and Cory Gardner have already complained about the partial fake shutdown of the bureaucracy, not the shutdown of our nation-state. Lamar Alexander is trying to revive the Gang of Eight amnesty. Lindsey Graham and Joe Manchin are trying to work on a “dream” amnesty deal, the very amnesty that spawned this invasion to begin with!

In addition, the following seven House Republicans voted for the Democrat budget bill: Brian Fitzpatrick, Penn.; Will Hurd, Texas; John Katko, N.Y.; Peter King, N.Y.; Elise Stefanik, N.Y.; Fred Upton, Mich.; and Greg Walden, Ore. Walden recently ran the very GOP organ responsible for recruiting other Republicans, and Stefanik is being tapped to recruit more women candidates.

Then there is the donor class. Time magazine reports that the Kochs are making amnesty their biggest priority this year. Last year, their biggest priority was jailbreak, and they succeeded in getting Jared Kushner to convince President Trump to break his lifelong views on that issue. The overwhelming majority of federal drug traffickers these days, who will now be eligible for early release and reduced sentencing, are those tied to the very transnational cartels and gangs that have been empowered by the same immigration policies promoted by the Kochs. Yet the Kochs fund most of the “conservative” think tanks and many of the activist groups.

There is nobody who stands for the forgotten American taxpayer who is the victim of this insanity. All of the money, power, and fame are on the side of the invaders.

Which brings us to President Trump. He is the only voice for this issue, but he needs to step up his game. Yesterday’s press conference with border agents was a good start. He should follow up with a series of televised addresses to the nation laying out the history of the lies and betrayals against the American people on the immigration issue. He should deliver a presentation on how this particular iteration of illegal immigration is fueling the worst drug and gang crisis ever and is responsible for much of the violence in cities like Chicago. He should educate the public on the cost to our schools, health care, welfare, and criminal justice system and the number of Americans who pay the ultimate price for the betrayal of our border.

This is Trump’s time to shine. As Reagan once said, if not now, when? If not us, who? (For more from the author of “The Border Invasion Intensifies, While Congressional Republicans Sleep” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Worst Enemy of Black People

Malcolm X was a Muslim minister and human rights activist. Born in 1925, he met his death at the hands of an assassin in 1965. Malcolm X was a courageous advocate for black civil rights, but unlike Martin Luther King, he was not that forgiving of whites for their crimes against black Americans. He did not eschew violence as a tool to achieve civil and human rights. His black and white detractors accused him of preaching racism and violence. Despite the controversy, he has been called one of the greatest and most influential black Americans.

Many black Americans have great respect for Malcolm X. Many schools bear his name, and many streets have been renamed in honor of him, both at home and abroad. But while black Americans honor Malcolm X, one of his basic teachings goes largely ignored. I think it’s an important lesson, so I will quote a large part of it.

Malcolm X said: “The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn’t taken, tricked or deceived by the white liberal, then Negros would get together and solve our own problems. I only cite these things to show you that in America, the history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Negros think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems. Our problems will never be solved by the white man.” . . .

According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year only 11 percent of black children were born to unwed mothers. As late as 1950, female-headed households constituted only 18 percent of the black population. Today it’s close to 70 percent. In much earlier times, during the late 1800s, there were only slight differences between the black family structure and those of other ethnic groups. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households were two-parent households. Welfare has encouraged young women to have children out of wedlock. The social stigma once associated with unwed pregnancy is all but gone. Plus, “shotgun” weddings are a thing of the past. That was when male members of a girl’s family made the boy who got her pregnant live up to his responsibilities.

The high crime rates in so many black communities impose huge personal costs and have turned once-thriving communities into economic wastelands. (Read more from “The Worst Enemy of Black People” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE