What Donald Trump Knows That Conservative Intellectuals Don’t

This week, I gave a talk at Stanford on the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of Western Culture. Though no students objected, two members of the university’s administration sent out a newsletter portraying me as an anti-Muslim bigot. They said it was “unacceptable” I should speak on such a topic during the celebration of Ramadan. They managed — as they surely intended — to stir up some trouble, though not enough to bring the event to a halt.

Shame on them. For college administrators to try to convince college students that it is “unacceptable” for them to hear ideas they might disagree with is simply wicked. In my response from the podium, I explained that there are only two systems of speech: free speech and speech that is controlled by the powerful. If speech is going to be silenced on the grounds that it is hateful, you have to ask the question: who decides? The answer is always the same: the powerful — the government, the administration, big business, the mob. And it is never very long before “hateful” speech turns into “speech people in power disagree with.” That is why, for speech to be free, it must be free for everyone, even those we dislike. . .

These are not honorable sallies in a war of ideas. These are acts of force meant to seize terrain.

This is what Donald Trump understands that too many conservative intellectuals miss. The belligerent and obstreperous Trump was called to the presidency by voters who know that, while the war of ideas can and should be waged politely by American friends, a war for terrain is a much uglier business.

Thus, also this week, the Trump Administration boldly refused to join the so-called Christchurch Call, a Global agreement by 18 nations to censor online speech. Also this week, the Trump Administration launched a website where you can file a complaint if you feel you’ve been censored on social media for your political opinions. (Read more from “What Donald Trump Knows That Conservative Intellectuals Don’t” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

For a Successful Second Term, Trump Will Need a New Strategy in Senate Primaries

When the president and his administration help Senate RINOs, they are helping senators who are sandbagging his campaign agenda.

The AP obtained a copy of an invitation to an event sponsored by President Trump’s campaign committee and the RNC to a joint fundraiser with Vice President Mike Pence and North Carolina’s junior senator, Thom Tillis, next week in Greensboro. Local media is reporting this as a signal of support from the White House for Tillis’ re-election.

Hasn’t the president learned his lesson of supporting RINOs only to have them bite him on every issue he campaigned on?

Senate Republicans are more liberal than ever before. Even if Republicans win back the House and Trump is re-elected, he will be no closer to passing any of his priorities on immigration, spending, or health care than he was during his first two years of trifecta control, because there are very few Republicans in the Senate who truly believe in his campaign promises.

Confirming conservative judges was one of the few unifying ideals of Senate Republicans, yet Mitt Romney voted against a well-qualified district judge nominee yesterday because he felt the nominee said mean things about Obama. But Trump endorsed Romney in the primary last year, thereby ending any attempt to challenge him.

This has been a broader point of frustration during Trump’s first term. He continuously endorses the very RINOs whom his party’s voters elected him to vanquish and then complains about the Senate undermining his campaign promises. Trump’s endorsement has the singular power to catapult struggling primary challengers into the lead against liberal Republican incumbents. At the very least, if Trump would remain neutral in the primaries, some challengers might have a fighting change, especially in North Carolina, where Tillis is now vulnerable to a challenge. But if Trump supports an incumbent, that is the kiss of death for any primary challenger.

Take a look at the Senate landscape this cycle. There are a number of open seats or incumbents in states where Trump won, often by large margins, in 2016.

Trump has the power to create for himself a more conservative Senate that will push for market-based health care, pass his budget proposals, back an America-first foreign policy, and codify his immigration priorities. Yet if he reflexively endorses incumbents and establishment picks, he is consigning his second term to complete doom.

Tillis has a 38% Liberty Score and is not a conservative on a single issue – social, fiscal, or national security. He has promoted amnesty from the day he set foot in the Senate. Tillis initially opposed Trump’s emergency declaration but changed course after he realized he’d face primary challengers.

At a time when House Democrats are trying to push back against Trump by codifying transgenderism into civil rights, Tillis is being honored by a “Republican” transgender group.

If you remember, Tillis refused to stand up for his former colleagues in the North Carolina legislature when they were combatting liberal cities that were allowing men into private female dressing rooms.

We are seeing the same thing with Lindsey Graham. Just because he is talking tough on Mueller and the FBI Hillary email scandal doesn’t mean he is suddenly a conservative on policy. Just because he is rhetorically cozying up to Trump doesn’t mean that the minute he is safe from a primary challenge, he will not give Trump hell on immigration and on his realist vision on foreign policy, especially since Graham is a shill for Qatar. Indeed, he is cozying up to Trump only for the purpose of avoiding a primary challenge. In fact, just yesterday, he had the nerve to say that “we need a conversation about the 11 million [illegal aliens already here]” at a time when his own policies have incentivized the current overwhelming flow.

The reality is that every Republican will come to Trump in a time of need. But they will not be there for him when he needs support in the Senate. Just the opposite: They will sandbag him with media virtue-signaling at every turn.

Every piece of leverage the president has is enmeshed in the budget process. Yet during every single budget battle since January 2017, McConnell and company have worked to give the Democrats everything they wanted on both spending and immigration. They are in the process of once again moving Trump to the Left on the disaster bill and on the budget caps and debt ceiling in September.

The president needs to think long and hard what his second term will look like if he continues supporting Republicans like Mitt Romney, Thom Tillis, and Lindsey Graham. But changing course in Senate electoral strategy will likely require a change in White House personnel. (For more from the author of “For a Successful Second Term, Trump Will Need a New Strategy in Senate Primaries” please click HER)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Hillary Does Hope to Run Again

Hillary Clinton is the gift that just keeps on giving to President Donald Trump and the Republican Party. She will not leave the political stage and continues to keep herself in the public eye. After completing a rather unsuccessful speaking tour with her husband, former President Bill Clinton, in which ticket prices were slashed dramatically to fill empty seats, Hillary Clinton decided to visit New Hampshire, the site of the first presidential primary in 2020.

Not only is Clinton not ready to endorse any of the almost two dozen declared Democratic presidential candidates, she is still flirting with a third race for the presidency. It seems Hillary is a horrible listener and did not get the message from the 2016 election that the voters of America don’t like her.

Despite being given CNN debate questions from her friend Donna Brazile, Hillary had to cheat to defeat Senator Bernie Sanders and win the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination. In the general election, she outspent political novice Donald Trump by a two-to-one margin and still lost in an electoral vote landslide. What was truly amazing about her defeat was that she had 95% of the media on her side and decades of political experience on her team, but was still defeated by a candidate who had never run for any political office. Trump understood the importance of campaigning in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which were ignored by Hillary.

Ever since Election Night of 2016, Hillary has harbored a deep animosity against both Donald Trump and the American people who rejected her. . .

Obviously, Hillary wants to run for President again and take on Donald Trump in a 2020 election rematch. While she continues to harbor this fantasy, it will only hurt the Democratic Party and boost President Trump’s chances for re-election. As long as she continues to mount a pseudo campaign highlighted by her long list of grievances, Hillary Clinton will serve as a great reminder to the American people that they made the right choice in the 2016 election. (Read more from “Hillary Does Hope to Run Again” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Deep State Pansies vs. The Constitution

We are in a season of Constitutional crises, according to Democratic leadership.

At first, it was about Russian collusion Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s firing by the president, expected any day. That never happened, of course.

Deep State vs. Constitution

Sen. Chuck Schumer referred to him as “Director Mueller” because he used to be director of the FBI. But part of our Constitutional system is that we, the people, can replace public officials and change public policy first through elections, and then by the authority of newly elected officials to make promised changes.

Schumer and fellow Democrats are apparently uncommitted to that Constitutional plan. The prestige and authority of a “deep state” of permanent bureaucrats has come to rival or surpass that of officials whose election disappoints the Democratic elites.

About a year ago, Schumer sounded the alarm again when he feared the president might fire one of his Deputy Attorneys General who had undermined him.

“I’d like to make something crystal clear to the president,” Schumer said. “Mr. President, any attempt to remove Rod Rosenstein will create the exact same Constitutional crisis as if you fired Special Counsel Mueller.”

Then when the president replaced Attorney General Jeff Sessions with an interim appointee in November, Sen. Schumer smelled Constitutional crisis again. “If [the interim Attorney General] stays there, he will create a Constitutional crisis by inhibiting Mueller or firing Mueller,” Schumer said.

He demanded that Trump’s new appointee recuse himself from supervising Mueller’s investigation. Unless he did so, Schumer threatened a government shutdown.

The Mueller Report

Now the Mueller investigation has run its course, but the Democrats’ season of Constitutional crisis is just getting warmed up. This is necessary because the Democrats need to lay a foundation for impeachment, now that the president is clear of the threat of criminal prosecution.

House Democrats have issued a subpoena for the full Mueller report without any redactions. Nearly all of them are lawyers, and therefore well aware that it would be a violation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to disclose the portions of the Mueller report that quote Grand Jury proceedings, and that whoever violates Grand Jury secrecy is subject to prosecution.

It’s arguable that Attorney General Barr should request a judge’s permission to break Grand Jury secrecy in this instance, but it’s hardly a Constitutional crisis if he doesn’t. The Rule is there for a reason. You should be able to give confidential truthful answers to a prosecutor’s questions in Grand Jury without entrusting your fate to Oscar Goodman or Ilhan Abdullahi Omar.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

I do want robust Congressional oversight of the executive branch. That, too, is a very important part of the Constitutional plan. The Department of Justice has offered to provide 12 leaders in both chambers of Congress, including Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, access to a less-redacted version of the Mueller report to accommodate negotiations for a release that would comply with the criminal procedure rules.

But but none of the six Democrats have taken the Justice Department up on its offer to come and have a look at the document they claim is indispensable to their Constitutional role. Instead, the House Democrats voted Barr in Contempt of Congress. Trump, ever the tough negotiator, retaliated by asserting Executive Privilege.

Rank Hypocrisy

Predictably, Nadler pronounced America is “now in a Constitutional crisis.” He was oblivious of any such peril in 2012, when Attorney General and Obama confidante Eric Holder refused to comply with a Congressional subpoena. The Obama Justice Department argued then it was under no obligation to comply with any Congressional subpoena, and asserted wide-ranging Executive Privilege.

Nadler, eager to declare Barr’s legal resistance a Constitutional crisis today, was a bitter-end defender of Holder when he was covering up the deadly Fast and Furious gunrunning operation that provided 2,000 guns to criminals, and got a Border Patrol agent killed. Holder’s staff wrote the Committee that the Obama administration was unaware of Fast and Furious. He later admitted that was false.

When Congress voted a contempt citation against Holder in 2012 after months of defiance and legerdemain, Nadler joined a Democrat walkout from the House chamber to protest “the shameful, politically-motivated GOP vote.”

You have to give Nadler credit for cutting to the chase, though. House Republicans let Holder drag out negotiations Saddam Hussein-like for 18 months. Nadler’s committee Democrats voted Barr in contempt less than a month after issuing their subpoena.

Cheapening the Language

Hyper-partisan Democrats have cheapened the currency of Constitutional crisis. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has chimed in with her own claim that we’re in Constitutional crisis again. Sen. Kamala Harris and Rep. Al Green have used the exhausted phrase in recent days. It has become a shibboleth to rally the base, rather than a descriptive term.

I wish they had kept their powder dry. There might actually be a Constitutional crisis some day, and this phrase will be useless to alert the citizenry, because badly behaved Democrats have worn it out.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Why Is There Medicine?

When I was out of the country about 40 years ago, I received the sad news that an uncle had died back home. He was a lifelong forklift driver at Whirlpool in his late 40s.

There was no email, no Internet, and overseas telephone was insanely expensive back then, so I didn’t get many details. He had enjoyed his life, denied himself very little, and had a lot of abdominal fat to show for it.

From Cheeseburgers to Paradise

A couple of years later, when I asked his son about the cause of death, he replied “cheeseburgers.” In other words, he clogged his cardiac arteries with cholesterol and died of a heart attack.

Despite a lot fewer cheeseburgers, my grandmother had died suddenly of the same problem a few years earlier. She was in her own yard, in the middle of some do-it-yourself projects, about this time of year. And then she was gone.

She wasn’t the only one in my lineage who died of blocked arteries. And so when I got my own diagnosis 20 years ago and they wheeled me across a Las Vegas parking lot to Sunrise Hospital, you might have expected me to ride that gurney with a sense of doom.

But the medical science had advanced so far that my main concern was whether my car would be towed from the clinic lot before I went home the next morning. I knew I was going home after my angioplasty, the operation that would have saved my uncle and my grandma.

And it wasn’t just a slick new operation under the hood that bought me these past 20 years. It was statin drugs, paired with periodic liver function testing. And a symphony of pharmaceuticals that have tamed my high blood pressure and diabetes, without insulin injections.

I lift weights and swim laps at the YMCA now. I walk miles across town because I feel like it. In the summer, I jump off diving boards with grandkids, or swim off West Coast beaches. I hike in the woods if the insects aren’t too fierce.

And so I am unable to pile on when others denounce Big Pharma or the medical industry. I am deeply grateful to them, not just for saving my bacon, but for the sacrifices they had to make before they ever made a nickel off us.

The Making of a Greedy Lifesaver

Nobody was born a surgeon or pharmacist. They were born with two arms and two legs, and they only got 24 hours in each day, just like us. But when high school friends were patrolling the mall, the future medical professionals were home cramming for Saturday morning AP tests. When we came back to the dorm from Kirkwood Avenue, they were still bent over organic chemistry homework.

I am grateful, also, to the impersonal corporations that developed my medications. There is great legal and financial risk in pharmaceutical research and development. Most new medicines are money losers. Research and regulatory compliance are incredibly expensive, without any guarantee of a payoff in the end.

Nothing Noble About Envy

When the pharmaceutical company finally does produce a winner, it is begrudged high profits that it needs to cover all the losers, all the medicines that crashed and burned, and to finance the next promising idea. Critics suddenly materialize to denounce the company’s greed. It costs nothing to claim other people’s stuff, of course, or to claim other people’s innovation and diligence as your own “human right.”

But it also discourages further innovation and diligence. Investment and risk-taking can and will cease if we swoop in to dispossess innovators just as their efforts are about to pay off. And therefore such class warfare victimizes all of us, not just the pharmaceutical companies.

In some ways, the pharmaceutical industry is a victim of its own public successes. We don’t hear about a miraculous drug until it’s marketed on television or recommended by a physician. We rarely hear anything about the ideas that didn’t work out, unless we’re investors.

But you can be sure that investors are alert to the failures, and to the attempts to confiscate the profits that flow from the successes. Your retirement fund’s money manager would be negligent if he failed to pay attention to the companies’ profits.

Honoring the Leach Above the Ox

If that American investment dries up, who will develop medicines and medical technology in the future? Canada? We can buy medicine much cheaper there than in our own country. Why not just outsource the pharmaceutical industry, including all investment, innovation, regulatory compliance and risk-taking to Canada? That ought to make the AARP happy.

The truth, of course, is that Canada is a parasite on American investment and innovation. Most, if not all the cheap medicine that you can buy in Canada or Mexico is produced in the U.S. and would never exist if not for American investment, which in turn would not exist without American profits.

It’s annoying that foreign countries can piggyback on our pharmaceutical industry, not only on American producers but on American consumers who pay the prices that sustain the research and development, including regulatory compliance, by the American industry. But make no mistake: parasites can’t replace the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. And why would they want to?

Investment is Voluntary

If you think it’s far-fetched that U.S. pharmaceutical companies would walk away from the market, consider what’s happening in antibiotics. There’s been very little antibiotic research by the major drug companies in recent years, not because they’re discouraged by the science, but because it’s almost impossible to make money on antibiotics once you develop them.

There are 42 antibiotics in human trials now, according to Businessweek magazine, but “only four come from the largest 50 drug companies.” Yet the smaller firms are financially ill equipped to survive the regulatory approval process, which can stretch nearly 20 years into the future. We are presiding over the death of U.S. antibiotic research and development precisely when we need it most urgently.

Chickens are coming home to roost after decades of casual, promiscuous misuse of common antibiotics. Pathogens have developed resistance to entire classes of antibiotics.

The consequences are grim, according to the Centers for Disease Control. It undermines “our ability to fight infectious diseases and manage the infectious complications common in vulnerable patients undergoing chemotherapy for cancer, dialysis for renal failure, and surgery.”

We Must Harness Greed

Pharmaceutical corporations are not funded by Santa Claus. They eventually make money from consumers, if all goes well. But initial investment comes from shareholders who can pick up the phone at any time to move their money into General Motors or Budweiser. Shares for antibiotic manufacturer Melinta Therapeutics have fallen 94 percent since early 2018. Achaogen filed for bankruptcy last month.

Achaogen, you may recall, is the company that developed an antibiotic that kills deadly carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae (CRE) in the test tube. The company got part-way through the regulatory gauntlet. Despite its feats of scientific research, the corporation couldn’t hang on until profitability. Its assets will be auctioned off next month. Corporations are not indestructible.

I have no human right to antibiotics, or to any other pharmaceuticals, or to anybody’s involuntary medical services. But my right to freely contract for antibiotics and medical expertise has been lifesaving, as recently as last year. I am hoping for more greed, not less, in the pharmaceutical industry.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Is Right About the Muslim Brotherhood

President Donald Trump reportedly intends to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a foreign terrorist organization.

On its face, the move is inarguable. The Brotherhood is the religious foundation of Islamic terrorist groups al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. It not only serves as their religious and ideological wellspring, but also cooperates with them on multiple levels, including financing their operations, whichamount to material support for terrorism on a massive scale. . .

Had the U.S. wished to separate the IRGC’s terror operations from the rest of its activities, it would have been impossible. Terrorism, in the name of protecting and extending the Islamic revolution in Iran throughout the world, is the purpose of the IRGC. All of its other activities are directed towards enabling it to achieve its purpose.

The same is the case with the Muslim Brotherhood. Just as the IRGC created Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and countless Shiite militia in Iraq and Syria, Afghanistan, Bahrain and Yemen; so the Muslim Brotherhood has spawned Sunni jihadist terror groups from Hamas and Al Qaeda to Jaish el-Islam. Not only has the Muslim Brotherhood spawned terror offshoots, it engages directly in terrorism. And just as the IRGC operates on multiple non-military outlets to facilitate its terrorist activities, so the Muslim Brotherhood is a multi-dimensional organization, all of whose activities are geared towards achieving the aim of violent global jihad.

In 2015, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) submitted identical bills to the Senate and House of Representatives enjoining the Secretary of State to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a foreign terrorist organization. Both bills were resubmitted in 2017. In them, the lawmakers set out the case for the designation. The bills included in-depth background on the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood; its ideology of global domination; its operations in the United States; and its ties to terror groups that it has spawned, including al Qaeda and Hamas. (Read more from “Trump Is Right About the Muslim Brotherhood” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump’s New Border Directives May Stop Fanning the Flames. But It’s Time to Douse Them

The situation along the southwestern border has long surpassed unsustainable or emergency levels and has ventured into uncharted, untenable waters. Looking back, the situation at the border that led to the five-week partial government shutdown now appears to be child’s play. What started out, around this time last year, as confusion over radical court rulings regarding prosecutions at the border and children being separated from parents has morphed into a full-scale invasion and the breakdown of our duly passed immigration laws. Now is not the time for blame, half-truth, or half-measures. It’s the time to decisively act! Nibbling around the edges on peripheral aspects of this issue might have worked to stem the greater tide a year ago, but the present situation calls for a complete shutoff at the border.

On Monday, the White House announced a new directive for the DHS and the attorney general to establish fees for asylum requests, to end work permits for those coming in at the border, and to establish regulations to adjudicate claims within 180 days. These measures are either vague, long overdue, and/or deal with the tangential aspects of the invasion and further accede to the premise that we can adjudicate our way out of this invasion.

The DHS not only releasing hundreds of thousands of aliens, but providing them with work permits was an egregious policy of the Obama administration and was never even promulgated in a formal regulation. It should never have been continued by this administration. Yet the Trump administration handed out 750,000 work permits to bogus asylum seekers or those presumed to have a credible fear. And that was just through last September, before the large numbers began coming over. Even now, the president is calling on DHS to “propose regulations” barring work permits rather than immediately terminating Obama’s policy today. And while getting rid of this horrible policy is certainly a welcome move, it merely removes one gratuitous act of fanning the flames; it doesn’t extinguish the flames by flatly denying all credible fear at the border, as is within the president’s power.

Charging fees for applications could theoretically deter many of those migrants who lack any funds (after spending it all on cartel smugglers), but few of them are actually applying for asylum anyway and are still being released rather than returned or detained. Also, absent a directive to place all these people in expedited removal and dispose of their credible fear claims with a rocket docket in tent cities, it’s unlikely enforcement personnel will deport those who simply lack the funds to pay the fee, although that point is still unclear.

As for adjudicating the cases within 180 days, again, the president is not required to adjudicate bogus claims. In fact, he has the full power to immediately turn them down at the border, and immigration law requires that any appeal be dispensed with ideally within 24 hours and at most within seven days. That is current law. A mix of empowering Border Patrol to immediately deny credible fear claims, the creation of tent cities and a rocket docket for appeals, use of expedited removal, and the discretion to rewrite Flores and implement the changes would solve this problem within seven days. Absent those reforms, nothing will change, and claimants won’t be deported even within 180 days.

Nothing in this directive explicitly excludes these measures, and they might very well be a part of the plan, but the wording provides us with no new insight. It’s possible the administration might be biding time to implement something more robust but didn’t want anything definitive on paper so that the ACLU can’t get a head start crafting lawsuits.

Either way, these are all debates about how to plow ahead with the asylum process in the long run. What we need is a complete shutoff of all immigration requests at our border, a power the president holds absolutely and unconditionally, in order to deal with the catastrophe now. In addition, we need several backup plans both to enforce the shutoff and as alternatives if the administration chooses to abide by the inevitable illegal universal injunction from the next California judge.

Below are recommendations made within the framework of current statutes in the Immigration and Nationality Act to implement my 10 ideas to deter, defend, and demagnetize.

1. When Congress gave the president power (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) to shut off all or any form of immigration for any amount of time at will when he believes it’s “determinantal to the interests of the United States,” it certainly never envisioned anything near this obvious and severe. Between empowering our enemies in the cartels, flooding the country with drugs and gangs, creating strategic diversions, the public charge, the birthright citizenship, the diseases, the sex trafficking and stash houses, and the money-making for evil-doers, we have overshot the criterion of “detrimental” by a factor of one thousand. It’s time for the president to immediately announce, in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), the closing of the country (southwestern border, northern border, both coasts, and interior ports of entry) to any and all aliens who do not already possess a U.S. immigrant or nonimmigrant visa (or who are from a Visa Waiver Program (VWP) country) and a passport, and a who are not inadmissible per the section, as determined by CBP. This means no new defensive asylum applications will be accepted, as was the case with the Haitians in 1993 when the Supreme Court upheld this power in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council Inc.

2. Advertise #1 on radio, in print ads, handbills, and billboards in the Northern Triangle. This is what the Obama administration did to shut down the flow of UACs from Central America in 2014.

3. Return any alien entering illegally from a contiguous country to that country using the Alien Exit Transfer Program and those from non-contiguous ones to their country of origin. For aliens who return to the U.S. in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) or 1326 or in the event of legal challenges to #1, return to 100 percent zero-tolerance prosecutions. Use military lawyers to prosecute these cases to free up ICE attorneys to represent the government in asylum and removal proceedings. To insure there are no 2018-style repeats of lost or misplaced children, perhaps assign family members shared alien registration numbers with a dash and suffix for children apprehended with an accompanying adult. Use hospital-style bands for both adults and children with their names and AR numbers on them during processing.

The DHS should work with the U.S. Marshals to incarcerate adults geographically proximate to children for prompt reunification after criminal proceedings.

Consider turning over the confirmed children of aliens who engaged in dangerous behavior to amenable state Child Protective Services and reimbursing them for the costs of caring for those children. This will make it clear to the country that illegal alien criminals are certainly no better than American criminals whose children are brought into the custody of Child Protective Services.

4. In preparation for a rocket docket and airlift deportation of the next group of Central Americans in the pipeline, the DHS and Department of Defense should establish tent cities right near Air Force bases along the southwest border and within easy transportation distance to the bases’ flight lines. Examples include Goodfellow, Lackland, and Laughlin in Texas; Holloman and Kirtland in New Mexico; Luke and Davis-Monthan in Arizona; and as a last resort, anything in California. Provide tents for court proceedings, areas for consulting with counsel, sleeping, eating, medical care, and schooling for children, plus bath and toilet facilities.

5. Detain aliens in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1222(a) for health screenings and observations. The Flores Settlement Agreement should not be seen as trumping the statute, and while the government obtained an exemption to the five-day release requirement to process family units per Flores v. Lynch, the agreement only specifies release must be to the “least restrictive setting.” Additionally, defensive “asylum seekers” are, by their very nature, inadmissible aliens subject to expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(C) for misrepresentation or (a)(7), lacking required immigration documents. They are also subject to mandatory detention per 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) and (b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV) respectively at a minimum, until such time as they’ve received a favorable credible fear determination.

Additionally, as the aliens are technically also inadmissible public charges per 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4) and flight risks, they should remain detained through the duration of their proceedings, until either being granted asylum or removed from the U.S.

If for whatever reason release should be necessary, do not allow catch-and-release of any alien who has received a favorable credible fear determination who has not completed an I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal, and assign them a court summons to the immigration court nearest to where they entered the U.S. illegally or the port of entry where they were deemed inadmissible. They should not be allowed to venture over to the interior court of their choosing.

6. Prosecute false or misleading claims of fear, statements made relative to the asylum application, etc. per 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Also, inform all aliens that if their applications are found to be frivolous, they will be permanently barred from any relief from deportation, per 8 U.S.C. §1158(d)(6).

7. Have the attorney general establish by regulations additional limitations and conditions, consistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(C), under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (b)(1). That could include a regulation stating that anyone who uses criminal smuggling or cartel groups or caravans to come here is ineligible for asylum.

8. Use already withheld foreign aid as a carrot to get Northern Triangle countries to agree to become each other’s safe-third country as required by § 1158(a)(2)(A), e.g., Guatemala and Honduras for El Salvador; El Salvador and Honduras for Guatemala; and El Salvador and Guatemala for Honduras. In other words, promise to restore and possibly even increase aid if they agree to such an arrangement, which would instantly shut down any asylum claims. They could also get extra points for cooperating logistically with the air lifts.

The bottom line is that we need a plan to deter, defend, and demagnetize our porous border, and these are some of the statutes that can be used to prepare such a plan. Throwing more money at a “humanitarian crisis” to further treat, process, and incentivize this invasion with a supplemental funding bill is not the answer. Applying current law is the answer. (For more from the author of “Trump’s New Border Directives May Stop Fanning the Flames. But It’s Time to Douse Them” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Sleepless in Indianapolis: The NRA’s Corruption Problem

My grandson and I are back from our road trip to Indianapolis, where we drove up for the National Rifle Association Annual Meetings & Exhibits. Admission was free for us members, about 75,000 of us, and 15 acres of gun-related exhibits beckoned to enthusiasts.

Longtime readers of this column may recall that I am not a gun enthusiast. I don’t know much about guns, and I’m not very curious. Yes, I had to shoot them and clean them when I was in the Army, but I’ve seldom shot one for fun since I was in junior high school.

I am, however, a freedom enthusiast. I am therefore a Second Amendment true believer.

We live in a diverse and contentious nation. I don’t believe for a moment that we have avoided dictatorship and genocide because we are too altruistic and high-minded for such things. Our republic and we, within it, have been protected by the deterrent effect of the widespread private and anonymous ownership of firearms and ammunition.

That Constitutional right to keep and bear arms will always be under siege. “Freedom,” as Ronald Reagan observed, “is never more than one generation away from extinction.” The NRA has been a potent, principled defender and counter-puncher against those who conspire against our civil right to own and supply the technology to protect ourselves and our republic.

The National Rifle Association

The NRA is a nonprofit corporation with an unusually large board of directors. Maybe there’s another one with 76 directors, but I don’t know of it. I’ve often thought how thrilling the board meetings must have been, kind of like a sports fantasy camp, except that you got to rub elbows with Ted Nugent, Allen West, Ollie North and Wayne LaPierre.

Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre has often been one of my heroes, standing up against fierce and hysterical public attacks when milder, meeker men (like me) might have wilted. And so I’m sentimental about the NRA, deeply committed to its success, and protective against its detractors.

Imagine my dismay, then, to read about the lawsuit it filed in suburban Washington DC this month against Ackerman McQueen, its Oklahoma City-based vendor for public-relations work, event planning, social media and digital content production. For 38 years, Ackerman has shaped the message and image of the NRA.

From My Cold Dead Hands

I have no criticism of Ackerman’s work product. In fact, I think much of it has been inspired, whether the late Charlton Heston’s “cold dead hands” speech nearly 20 years ago, or Charlie Daniels’ 2016 warning to the ayatollahs that heartlanders will defend our country with “bloody, calloused bare hands” if we have to.

But Ackerman billed NRA for $42.6 million in 2017. You’ve got to accept the highest level of transparency and accountability when you’re invoicing that kind of money. And it appears that Ackerman’s not living up to that.

The P.R. firm has sent the NRA vague and incomplete invoices, which is not a scandal. But when NRA employees did their job and insisted on clarification, their superiors retaliated against them. Therein lies the scandal. Many of the most conscientious employees no longer work at NRA. It appears that good stewards are seen as a nuisance by the senior executive staff.

Divided Loyalties

Part of the problem is that key NRA personnel are also on the Ackerman payroll, including President Oliver North. North was not, so far as I know, part of the clique that drove stubbornly ethical employees out. In fact, he is leading the drive to hold LaPierre accountable for financial misconduct.

But even here, his credibility is undermined by his divided loyalties between the NRA and its main vendor. One of the NRA’s legal complaints against Ackerman is the vendor’s refusal to provide a copy of its contract with North. He was coy when asked to provide his own copy of the contract, saying he’d need Ackerman’s consent to disclose his contract with them.

Of course, Ackerman is a privately-owned business. It has no direct legal obligation to us as NRA members. That obligation of vigilance and good stewardship is owed us by the NRA Board of Directors, and its Executive Vice President.

The NRA is roughly $30 million in the red. In previous years, it has run deficits as high as $40 million. Its retirement fund is about $60 million in the hole. Instead of chastening the board and the executive leadership, this seems to have emboldened them. They must be confident that NRA members will rally to the ramparts and dig deep into our own pockets to rescue our beloved organization.

And so Wayne earns about $1.4 million per year, at last count. He took a $4 million retirement distribution a few years ago, so that was over a $5 million year for him.

It’s always a shock when you hear the truth from your enemies instead of your allies, but it took antagonistic journalists to tell us about executives sliding off the NRA payroll and into $600,000 and $700,000 consulting contracts with the NRA. And about nimble wives, children and other family of NRA executives skipping between the payrolls of the NRA and its vendors, at eye-watering salaries.

Even if the NRA’s legal complaint against Ackerman for shady billing practices is airtight, the fact remains that our board has allowed fast-and-loose financial dealings that bring discredit on our organization, and put it at risk of very serious legal attack by hostile regulators in the state of New York.

Foxes Guarding the Henhouse

NRA lawyers and accountants brought insider corruption to the attention of the board’s Audit Committee last year. Emily Cummins, in her 12th year as NRA managing director of tax and risk management, brought her concerns to an emergency meeting of that watchdog committee last July.

But the committee took no effective action, and didn’t notify fellow directors of the problems. The board retroactively approved past actions that should have required their prior approval. And Cummins no longer works at the NRA.

The board didn’t confront its executives and contractors about improper side contracts. There were no contract reviews, investigations or disciplinary actions. Whistleblowers quietly vacated their positions and left the organization.

Hostile Alliance Against the NRA

Or did they? Somebody has been leaking internal documents to Michael Spies, a writer for New Yorker magazine. That magazine has formed an anti-NRA alliance with The Trace, a specialized anti-gun online newsletter owned by New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Together, they have pieced together a devastating expose of NRA financial corruption. You can read it online; there’s no pay wall for the first few articles.

The New Yorker is inevitably feeding information to hostile regulators in New York State, where the NRA is incorporated, and where New York (state) Attorney General Letitia James and Gov. Andrew Cuomo are in the driver’s seat.

This board has put our organization, and therefore the Second Amendment, at risk. In some cases, their dereliction is potentially criminal. At the very least, all directors on the audit committee, finance committee and executive committee should resign.

The board apparently saw trouble on the horizon, because it recently revised our by-laws to make their own recall nearly impossible. LaPierre has also taken some precautions, getting the board to add a clause to his employment contract that will guarantee him payment as a speaker and consultant after he retires, beginning at the full Executive Vice President base salary he currently receives.

No Showdown at Indianapolis

I looked forward to the members’ meeting last weekend as an opportunity to vote the rascals out and support reform candidates. But the elections were already over before we met in Indianapolis. Only one director remained to be selected.

Oliver North was a no-show at the annual members’ meeting, so the seat next to the Executive Vice President was vacant. The media-conscious North may have wanted to avoid any new photographs of him in the same frame with Wayne LaPierre. I don’t blame him; it doesn’t feel like a sports fantasy weekend anymore.

He did send a representative in the Pennsylvania delegation, who read his letter from the floor, briefly touching on financial misconduct allegations against LaPierre. Presidents typically serve two one-year terms, but North’s letter announced he will not serve a second term because the board didn’t re-nominate him.

Predictably, the old guard lectured insurgents about washing dirty NRA laundry in public, and the allegations against LaPierre were quickly referred to a closed-door meeting of the board to follow the Annual Meeting. The general membership will not meet again until a year from now, in Nashville.

I hope the NRA still exists this time next year, and that it is still a force for freedom, not just self-preservation. According to one retired official quoted by Spies, New York State could sanction or remove board members, disband the entire board, or revoke the NRA’s corporate charter altogether. It could also lose its federal tax-exempt status.

Rehabilitating the NRA

If you care about the NRA, if you care about the Second Amendment, this is the time for adult supervision. There is no pain-free option. Can we save the NRA? I hope so. We’ll need to be more actively, anxiously engaged than ever before. Call and write your directors (listed in the NRA magazines) and demand they excise the cancer.

If we can’t save the NRA, it will be a terrible blow to the civic impact of gun owners in a critical election year. It may take us another generation to dig out from the rubble.

The Gun Lobby is You

But we had God-given Constitutional rights before the NRA existed and we’ll have them after the NRA ceases to exist. We must not despair of vindicating our right to keep and bear arms just because fallen men couldn’t keep their paws out of the cookie jar.

Win or lose, one lesson we should take away is that we should never again keep all our eggs in one basket. Join a state-level grassroots gun rights network that is not subject to suffocation by New York state regulators. You can find one at Jeff Knox’s Firearms Coalition website (www.FirearmsCoalition.org).

Consider joining Gun Owners of America (https://gunowners.org/), described by Ron Paul as “the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington.” Another uncompromising gun rights organization, although not so potent in Congress, is Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (jpfo.org).

The death or incapacitation of the NRA will mean that you can’t outsource your civic duty to Chris Cox anymore. If you care about your rights, you’re going to have to accept feeling like a pest. If your elected representatives or their staff roll their eyes when you follow up and hold their feet to the fire, oh well.

I hope we’re not coming to the end of an era of highly effective, efficient legislative advocacy but if we are, you’re still a citizen. You still have a Constitutionally protected right to petition for the redress of grievances, and your right to keep and bear arms – by the supreme law of the land – shall not be infringed.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Democrats’ Thirst for Power Is Dividing America

The Democrats’ thirst for power is a root cause of the deep political division in America. In every major issue facing our country, Democrats seek to inflict as much damage on President Trump as possible in order to boost their political prospects in the 2020 elections. The Democrat goal is to destroy President Trump at all costs, even if the consequence of a polarized America achieves Russian President Vladimir’s objective.

The reaction to special counsel Robert Mueller’s report is a perfect example of twisting the findings as the means to the Democrat political end. It was impeach President Trump, Russia collusion, and obstruction of justice before the Mueller report was released, and it remains impeach President Trump, Russia collusion, and obstruction of justice after the release of the Mueller report.

In the eyes of Democrats, the Mueller report was a vehicle for manipulation to achieve maximum political advantage, regardless of the truth. The report on Russian interference in the 2016 election was written by 19 lawyers after information was collected from 2,800 subpoenas and 500 witnesses, at an estimated cost of $31 million.

Democrats aren’t giving up on the Russia collusion theory even though the report slammed the door on their narrative that the president and his campaign worked with Russia to ensure then-candidate Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election. Democrats are also clinging to the fact that Mueller did not take a position on whether President Trump obstructed justice, which is another avenue to damage the president through additional investigations and possible impeachment.

The Mueller report had zero impact on Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. Waters believed there was collusion with Russia before Mueller’s report, and its findings didn’t change her mind. During an interview on MSNBC, Waters said the information in the Mueller report “on collusion and conspiracy” supported an impeachment effort. Waters was an early advocate for impeaching the president, long before the report.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is also adamant that there is Russia collusion, after the release of the Mueller report.

On “Meet the Press,” Nadler questioned Mueller for not charging Donald Trump Jr. for criminal conspiracy over the Trump Tower meeting, because, according to his analysis, the goal of meeting was to obtain material stolen from Hillary Clinton.

According to The Daily Caller, the meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower was not predicated on getting stolen material but on obtaining damaging information about Clinton’s undertakings with Russia.

The information provided by Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya was not stolen documents but opposition research put together by Fusion GPS, and the Mueller report concluded, “Although damaging opposition research is surely valuable to a campaign, it appears that the information ultimately delivered in the meeting was not valuable.”

Despite being wrong about the stolen information accusation, Nadler was successful in promoting anti-Trump propaganda on a national TV broadcast.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is not giving up on his views about Russia collusion despite the findings of the Mueller report. Schiff previously stated that “there is plenty of evidence of collusion and conspiracy in plain sight,” but qualified his statement by adding it’s the responsibility of Mueller to determine whether a crime was committed.

Now that Mueller has not established a criminal conspiracy with Russia, Schiff is repeating the collusion theory on TV and tweeting about the report to make the president look bad. Schiff is not giving up chasing collusion crime windmills. He plans to use the power of the House Intelligence Committee to continue an investigation surrounding counterintelligence matters in the hope of finding that a foreign power compromised President Trump or anyone associated with the president.

Schiff has also not ruled out impeaching the president for obstruction of justice.

Speaking at the Time 100 Summit, White House senior adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner blamed the Mueller investigation for damaging and dividing the country.

Kushner is correct. The Muller investigation contributed to the nation’s political divide, and the report is only adding fuel to the Democrats’ “destroy President Trump” fire. (For more from the author of “The Democrats’ Thirst for Power Is Dividing America” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Hillary Clinton Spawned the Russia Hoax. Christopher Steele Is Merely Its Front Man

Following the complete exoneration of President Trump on the hoax allegations of collusion with Russia, the legacy media is attempting to pick up the pieces and investigate what went wrong.

The New York Times, which inserted — without evidence — mountains of anonymously sourced false information into the American mainstream consciousness, has taken a renewed focus on the Steele dossier, which was reportedly an integral piece of source material for the Obama administration’s surveillance operation against the Trump campaign.

“Now the dossier — financed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and compiled by the former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele — is likely to face new, possibly harsh scrutiny from multiple inquiries,” The Times reports.

Christopher Steele and his Steele dossier were just one element of a campaign that was not only being financed, but appeared to be entirely manufactured and controlled by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. The Russia collusion hoax originated with Hillary Clinton, and the burden should be on her campaign and the DNC. It butchers the chain of responsibility to hold Christopher Steele, the contracted “researcher,” ultimately accountable for defending everything that spawned from the Clinton-DNC operation, which was later leveraged by the Obama administration.

The fraudulent narrative that Donald Trump was a Russian agent began to make its way into the media — and throughout the Obama Intelligence Community — during the late stages of the 2016 presidential election, likely as a means to help candidate Hillary Clinton secure her electoral victory by delegitimizing her opponent through the use of a black propaganda operation.

During the campaign, Team Clinton hired Fusion GPS, which then worked with Steele to produce and disseminate the dossier, according to the media narrative.

But we must also recall that in parallel with the Fusion GPS campaign, political operatives with deep ties to the Clinton family emerged with a reported second dossier — which according to reports, was practically identical to the Steele dossier — and began to disseminate to the media its false information about Donald Trump’s supposed ties to the Russians.

But the “second dossier” was too close to Hillary Clinton, and media outlets, likely recognizing that they would be identified as even greater shills for Clinton, recognized dossier number two as a political document and largely refused to run a story detailing its allegations, but for an embarrassingly hackish story in The Guardian.

Although he had potential legal baggage as a foreigner and former British spy working on a U.S. political campaign, Steele’s credentials still provided the necessary authority to make his dossier appear as legitimate intelligence. Still, many saw the dossier for what it was — junk opposition “research” without any confirmed sources. Not even the likes of The New York Times and Washington Post would publish a dossier crafted by Christopher Steele, let alone Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer, the Clinton family political hatchet men. But that’s what BuzzFeed is for. BuzzFeed publishing the Steele dossier — to this day, not a single major allegation in the dossier has been confirmed — gave a green light to the rest of the media to “report” on its absurd claims. The bogus dossier also provided the justification for the Obama administration (and later, rogue FBI directors in the Trump administration) to leverage the dossier to conduct surveillance on Trump-connected individuals.

Because Steele was a “former spy,” that seemed to be enough for the likes of the late Sen. John McCain, fired FBI Director James Comey, former CIA chief John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and many other top lawmakers and government officials to stand by Steele’s Clinton-backed work for years. But now that the Mueller investigation has ended, those aforementioned former government officials are nowhere to be found when it comes to taking responsibility for advancing the Steele dossier.

If Congress and the media are going to scrutinize what went wrong, their focus should begin with the Hillary Clinton campaign, and particularly Hillary Clinton herself. Was it merely a coincidence that the second dossier mirrored the first, or was Steele just a front man for the Russia hoax? To cast Christopher Steele as the man ultimately responsible for Spygate is to protect the individuals responsible for spawning the Russia hoax. (For more from the author of “Hillary Clinton Spawned the Russia Hoax. Christopher Steele Is Merely Its Front Man” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE