Ocasio-Cortez’s Factually Challenged Position on Israel Is Embarrassing

. . .This week on the new “Firing Line” on PBS — a program claiming to be a reboot of the famous debate show, where William Buckley once politely dismantled his guests’ weak arguments — Ocasio-Cortez was asked about Israel. A few months ago, she claimed that Israel Defense Forces was mass murdering civilians, and that Democrats should not silent on the crimes of Israel anymore.

Ocasio-Cortez: Well, yes, but I also think that what people are starting to see in the occupation of Palestine is just an increasing crisis of humanitarian conditions and that to me is just where I tend to come from on this issue.

. . .

Ocasio-Cortez
: Oh, I think, what I meant is that the settlements that are increasing in some of these areas and places where Palestinians are experiencing difficulty in access to housing and homes.

For one thing, there’s no such thing, nor has there ever been such a thing, as an Arab “Palestine.” There are a number of books Ocasio-Cortez could read about Arab history — or about the Turks or the Ottomans or the Jewish presence in Israel going back to 1500 BC, or even about situation that existed from 1947-1967 — but nowhere will she ever find a chapter on an independent Arab nation-state called “Palestine.” The idea itself is largely a post-World War II invention. You might hope that a Palestine will one day exist, but none has ever existed before.

Second, Ocasio-Cortez might not know this, but there are no “increasing settlements” in Gaza, the topic of the initial tweet Hoover was asking about, because there are no settlements in Gaza. In 2005, Israel conceded Gaza a large amount of autonomy, and with it the ability to conduct multi-party elections and live peacefully with its neighbors. In the process Israel dismantled all Israeli “settlements” in the Gaza Strip and expelled around 8,000 Jews who would have been massacred otherwise. (Read more from “Ocasio-Cortez’s Factually Challenged Position on Israel Is Embarrassing” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Disgraced Pervert Al Franken Just Got Owned HARD

[Author Kyle Smith has some questions for former U.S. senator Al Franken. These were asked after Franken fired off on Brett Kavanaugh.]

1) Al, as you were posting on social media a list of proposed questions for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, did it occur to you that your opinion on the matter is no more relevant than Harvey Weinstein’s?

2) Al, is it appropriate for a disgraced former U.S. senator to use the Twitter cognomen “U.S. Senator Al Franken”? Are you aware that being a senator is simply a temporary public-service job, not a permanent title of nobility, the usage of which this country discourages?

3) Al, until the abrupt end of your political career, when your term in the U.S. Senate ended as badly as the release of your film Stuart Saves His Family, you had been a U.S. senator for eight and a half years. Yet you had been a carcinogenically unfunny comedian for more than 40 years. Would not the Twitter handle “Carcinogenically Unfunny Comedian” be more appropriate for you to use as a permanent title?

4) Al, should not a senator who disgraced his office by sexually assaulting various women adopt a public pose of contrition rather than arrogance in the months immediately following his resignation?

5) Al, when you publicly list the questions you’d like to ask Kavanaugh, do you think Minnesota’s new junior senator, Tina Smith, might have just cause to feel that you are infringing on her territory? Are you in effect mansplaining to Senator Smith how to go about questioning a Supreme Court nominee?

(Read more from “Disgraced Pervert Al Franken Just Got Owned Hard” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How to Nullify an Election

Horses are big business in Kentucky, and even schoolboys were aware of the controversy in Louisville 50 years ago. It began with the horse race on the first Saturday in May, so far as we knew.

With Kentucky Gov. Louie Nunn and presidential candidate Richard Nixon watching from the stands, Dancer’s Image came from dead last, 14 lengths back, to pass 13 horses and cross the wire a length and a half ahead of Forward Pass. Nunn chuckled as Nixon dramatically tore his losing ticket in half.

But Nixon may have been a little hasty, depending on which horse he picked. Three days after the race, Churchill Downs stewards ordered Boston car dealer Peter Fuller to return the trophy and winning purse, and named Forward Pass the 1968 Kentucky Derby winner. Post race testing revealed that Dancer’s Image had phenylbutazone in his blood sample.

It’s an anti-inflammatory painkiller, used routinely nowadays when horses suffer swelling in their joints. But in 1968 it was illegal at Kentucky racetracks. Fuller’s veterinarian prescribed it during training, but allowed six days for it to clear from the horse’s bloodstream before the race. Fuller, his veterinarian and the horse’s trainer were at a loss to explain why Dancer’s Image still had phenylbutazone in his system on race day.

I was an odd 8th-grader who read Racing Form past performance charts fluently and had committed a lot of racing trivia to memory. But we were also a politically conscious family. My dad ran for the House of Representatives on “Clean Gene” McCarthy’s antiwar slate in Kentucky’s 1st Congressional District. Bobby Kennedy was campaigning for the presidential nomination across the river in Indiana.

Martin Luther King was shot down exactly one month before the 1968 Derby, but he was in Louisville one year earlier to help local Blacks, led by his brother, A.D. King, protest housing discrimination.

Locals had disrupted a race at Churchill Downs the previous year, and wanted to disrupt the 1967 Derby, but King persuaded them to hold the protests downtown instead, due to the potential for mayhem at the track.

In April 1968, Fuller entered Dancer’s Image in a tune-up for the Derby, the Wood Memorial Stakes at Aqueduct Racetrack in New York City.

When his horse won, Fuller donated the purse to the recently widowed Coretta Scott King. I’ve seen two different numbers – $62,000 and $77,415. Either way, it was a lot of money in 1968 dollars. He didn’t publicize it, but it was common knowledge at the track, and a race announcer mentioned it on television.

The gift made friends and enemies for Fuller. There was hate mail. There were anonymous death threats. There was a mysterious fire at one of his stables. So he asked Churchill Downs management to put on extra security. They refused.

Fuller was a pretty demanding guy. He was an ex-Marine and the son of a Republican ex-governor. His father was one of the wealthiest men in America, and Fuller was no slouch, himself.

After growing up in a household with 11 domestic servants, Fuller was accustomed to having his way. It was customary to provide Derby horse owners with four tickets. He demanded 50.

The brash, hard-charging Yankee may have alienated courtly Southerners he should have tried to charm. Instead, he made condescending remarks about “rednecks.”

The bottom line is that he didn’t get the extra security from Churchill Downs, and he didn’t hire his own. Security at his race barn, he recalled, was “an old fella in a chair and asleep.”

Fuller said later he believed he was “set up,” that some unknown intruder entered his horse’s stall to inject the disqualifying phenylbutazone. Either that or the blood sample was adulterated.

Fuller appealed the track stewards’ decision to the Kentucky Racing Commission, and lost. He took his case to court and won in 1970. Dancer’s Image was once again the 1968 Kentucky Derby winner.

But then the State of Kentucky took that decision up to a federal appeals court, and won its case against Fuller and Dancer’s Image. That was final. Fuller said he spent $250,000 on his futile lawsuits.

A billboard at his horse farm in New Hampshire boasts stubbornly that it is the home of Dancer’s Image, 1968 Kentucky Derby winner. But that sign is false.

Forward Pass is the 1968 Kentucky Derby winner. The colt was no fluke, either – he went on to win the Preakness, and barely missed a Triple Crown sweep June 1 after leading the Belmont til final sixteenth pole.

Three days later, as 13-year-olds were starting summer vacation, there was another tragedy in the real world, the second in two months. that made horse racing seem awfully frivolous.

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore,” wrote poet Emma Lazarus, addressing the Old World. “Send these, the tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

And so Palestinian immigrant Bishara Sirhan brought his family to America. The poet also bade the Old World “keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp.” But when Bishara brought his 12-year-old son Sirhan Sirhan from Jerusalem to California, he imported a monstrous ego and many centuries of ancient hatreds to his American sanctuary.

The younger Sirhan appeared Westernized in his teens, with a pompadour hair style, and even in old age today he looks like a kind gentleman. But he testified in court that he assassinated Bobby Kennedy “with 20 years of malice aforethought.” His diary confirmed that he was seething with resentment against Jews, and against the New York Senator who favored selling fighter jets to Israel.

He cased the Los Angeles hotel where Kennedy would watch primary election results with supporters. Kennedy won the California and South Dakota presidential primaries June 4. Incumbent President Lyndon Johnson had long since bowed out of the race. There was great hopefulness among Americans who had supported the late president John F. Kennedy eight years earlier.

As Bobby Kennedy left the celebration through a hotel kitchen, the angry immigrant intercepted the triumphant candidate and put three bullets in him, one in the head and two in the back. Like phenylbutazone, Sirhan nullified the victory. And in my mind’s eye, I see Richard Nixon piecing the shreds of his Derby ticket back together.

Of course, it’s anybody’s guess how the world might have been different if Bobby Kennedy were elected president that November instead of Richard Nixon. Like his older brother, he had a penchant for adultery. But he was Catholic, under the influence of a prominent Cardinal. Unlike his younger brother Teddy, he didn’t try to harmonize public policy with his personal immorality.

If older brother John’s lone nomination to the Supreme Court is any indication. a Court populated by three Bobby Kennedy nominations might have decided Roe v. Wade differently. Byron White, JFK’s appointment to the Court, not only dissented from Roe, but from all subsequent decisions that applied it as binding precedent.

Nixon, by contrast to JFK, nominated pro-abortion Justices Lewis Powell and Harry Blackmun, and pro-abortion Chief Justice Warren Burger to the Court.

If Bobby Kennedy had filled those Supreme Court vacancies with the same kind of Justices as Byron White, they might have combined with William Rehnquist and White to form a 5-4 majority for the protection of unborn children. Tens of millions of American children might have been spared the abortion holocaust that ensued after Roe v. Wade, and continues today. Thanks to Sirhan Sirhan and the people who welcomed him to our country, we’ll never know for sure.

“1968 was a horrific year,” Fuller said.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Immigration Scandal No One Is Talking About

Among the least talked about scandals in Washington is how immigration officials spent decades misleading Congress about the number of migrants evading court. I discussed that scandal at length in my last article.

In advancing this decadeslong effort, no accounting trick and no false narrative was out of bounds. Never in any year did these officials tell the real story of a court system in crisis. Brave rhetoric and bleached numbers consistently camouflaged the courts’ disarray.

“The fight against terrorism,” the Bush and Obama administrations boldly declared from 2005 through 2012, “is the first and overriding priority of the Department of Justice. … A key component of this effort is the securing of our nation’s borders and the repair of the immigration system as a whole. The application and enforcement of our immigration laws remain a critical element of this national effort.”

Both administrations insisted that immigration courts serve “as the front-line presence nationwide in immigration matters.”

Yet court officials’ words and actions didn’t match up with a “front-line presence.” While nearly a million people ran from court over the last 22 years — meaning 37 percent of all those free pending trial failed to appear for their hearings — no alarm was sounded by those in charge.

The courts’ 2007 annual report is just one example of the misleading numbers court officials pushed out for congressional oversight and public consumption each year.

“The overall failure-to-appear … rate decreased,” officials stated, “to 19 percent in 2007 from the five-year high of 39 percent in 2006.” This was pure whitewash. Accurate accounting showed the failure-to-appear rate in 2006 was 59 percent — 51 percent higher than court executives admitted. Nor was the real failure-to-appear rate in 2007 a lowly 19 percent. It was 36 percent, nearly double what the courts reported to Congress.

But gaming failures to appear in court was just one dynamic that officials suppressed to the point of dishonesty. Others, like unexecuted deportation orders, received scant official mention, but got out anyway.

“All should be troubled,” wrote immigration appeals Judge Edward Grant in 2006, “by the fact that only a small fraction of final orders of deportation … are actually executed.”

Records confirm this. Of the 1,254,152 aliens who were ordered deported from 1996 through 2016, 76 percent of them — 953,506 to be exact –remained in the U.S. They not only remained, but grew.

From a total of 557,762 unexecuted removal orders in 2008 were added 395,744 through August 2016 — a 71 percent increase in less than eight years. Despite expanded enforcement since 2017, court records say failures to appear in court will only increase and with them, experience shows, unexecuted removal orders.

None of this is new — yet nothing has been done. Failures to appear in court have predicated evasion of removal orders for years and are chronic symptoms of an immigration system turned upside down.

A 1989 Government Accountability Office audit on immigration courts foreshadowed today’s extremes. It concluded that “aliens have nothing to lose by failing to appear for hearings” and noted that over the preced­ing 30 years illegal entry into the United States increased by 2,200 percent — from 45,000 in 1959 to 1.2 million in 1989 — and, as illegal entry grew, so did failures to appear in court.

The Government Accountability Office’s audit also addressed cause and effect — and it didn’t blame illegal aliens. “Disregard for the courts,” it stated, stemmed from a “lack of repercussions.” Few aliens, it said, faced any “adverse consequences,” deportation included.

A 2006 Justice Department inspector general’s report agreed, stating the “program for deporting illegal aliens had been largely ineffective” and that “89 percent of nondetained aliens released into the U.S. who were subsequently issued final orders of removal were not removed.”

For a watchful public, these failures prove the gross inadequacy of federal response to problems now years in the making. All involve frail courts, feeble enforcement, and the willingness of government executives to hide embarrassing truths that worsen the causes underlying them.

What’s more is that in human terms, these trends also bring tragedies.

Algerian-born immigrant Ahmed Ferhani was arrested by New York City police on robbery and narcotics charges in 2010. Facing deportation, he remained free pending trial, then fled court in 2011. He was later arrested — but not before plotting attacks on Manhattan synagogues and the Empire State Building.

Jose Alfaro, a Salvadoran national, was ordered deported in 2002. Despite two later arrests, he remained at-large for nine years before murdering three people in Manassas, Virginia, on Feb. 10, 2011.

Kesler Dufrene, a Haitian national and twice-convicted burglar, was ordered deported upon completing his Florida prison sentence in 2010. Still, Immigration and Customs Enforcement released him, and on Jan. 2, 2011, he gunned down two adults and a 15-year-old in North Miami.

From these self-inflicted failures that now tarnish our immigration institutions, a simple lesson emerges: The nation that can elevate the immigrant must likewise sanction the violator.

Immigration done right — by attracting the talented, redeeming the persecuted, and removing the offender — dignifies and enriches us all. The systemic disorder America now faces does neither. (For more from the author of “The Immigration Scandal No One Is Talking About” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s Why Abolishing ICE Is a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Idea

The Left has a new crusade: pushing to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It’s not because all federal bureaucracies are wasteful, incompetent, and inefficient, a claim that besides surely being true is appealing across the political spectrum. They claim the agency is a “deportation force” ripping families apart.

Erasing the country’s ability to vet who comes into our country is not just being embraced by the radicals of the so-called “resistance,” but increasingly by Democratic Party politicians. The stance was largely confined to the op-ed pages of left-wing and libertarian publications until U.S. senator and likely 2020 presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) supported it. . .

But the demands for abolishing ICE are not about limiting government corruption through reducing its size. Merely eliminating the agency would make America less safe and put the American people at risk. If if another organization merely replaces it instead, that would ultimately accomplish nothing. It would be an expensive symbolic gesture.Either one would also create an incentive to increase illegal immigration. . .

ICE was created in 2003 in the wake of the 9/11 attacks as a part of the Department of Homeland Security, taking over from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. INS failed to catch five of the nine 9/11 hijackers who overstayed their visas. ICE was created because the INS had proved ineffective at enforcing immigration laws.

ICE incorporated the internal enforcement powers of INS and the investigative and intelligence services of the U.S. Customs Service. It has two departments, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). HSI focuses on things such as arms smuggling, drug trafficking, and other crimes. Here’s an example of some of their work:

(Read more from “Here’s Why Abolishing ICE Is a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Idea” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Sends Three Messages

In picking Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court, President Trump sent three messages.

1) Contrary to his pledge during the presidential debates, appointing judges that will overturn Roe v. Wade is not a top priority for President Trump — or at least not right now. Kavanaugh could very well pleasantly surprise us and be such a vote. Provided the pro-life movement puts a credible challenge to Roe before the Court, which it hasn’t done since Casey a quarter century ago. However, it’s guess-work either way. Amy Barrett, on the other hand, was a moral certitude to be such a vote (which is why the base wanted her). Kavanaugh, like his predecessor Anthony Kennedy (whom Kavanaugh used to clerk for) is a risk appointment for conservatives. Not necessarily a risk to be another Kennedy, as much as a risk to not turn out to be the game-changing upgrade we were hoping for. Think more John Roberts than Antonin Scalia.

2) President Trump is not interested in a prolonged ideological battle with Democrats, like Barrett would’ve ignited for months. Trump is much more comfortable with political guerrilla warfare. Like riffing at his rallies to fawning crowds, or condemning low-lying fruit like NFL kneelers and media hacktavists most of America already loathes. But here, for the first time in his presidency, he was presented the chance to truly go to war with the Left on something that really matters and determines the future, and there’s no way to spin it. He punted. Even in an election year when energizing his base, while triggering the alt-Left to public insanity, would’ve clearly helped him — he punted. Remember this missed opportunity later, should Democrats capture the House this fall and mire the president in impeachment next year.

3) The opinions of the conservative legal community, which loves Kavanaugh, matter greatly to Trump. While that’s inarguably better than anything that would’ve come from a President Hillary or any other Democrat, it also means you’re less likely to get choices that will push back on bad precedents like Roe, Kelo, etc. once on the High Court. Because this is pretty much what we see from these folks on the federal bench, too. They’re usually pretty good against new bad stuff, no threat at all against the old bad stuff. Kavanaugh is the consummate beltway legal beagle insider. He’s pretty much the same kind of pick you would’ve gotten from a Jeb Bush or any other conventional Republican had they won the presidency. He’s Team GOP, not MAGA.

Though conservative fundraising groups will send out their hosanna emails claiming otherwise, which they would’ve done had the president nominated a yellow dog, and Democrat groups will claim he’s a modern-day Moses come to re-impose Leviticus, this is all just political theater that will now be ignored out here in the cheap seats.

This is not a pick that will inspire the base to do anything other than yawn, and return to their summer. In 48 hours, he’ll largely be forgotten by most voters until his formal confirmation process begins.

It does Trump no harm, but not much good, either. Since Kavanaugh is likely to give the typical canned answers we’ve come to expect from GOP judicial nominees at confirmation hearings, he won’t have a chance to do anything that potentially pleases Trump’s base until after the midterm elections are over. Which he very well may do, but he won’t be doing it in time to alter the trajectory of the 2018 elections.

This is a political single that drives in a run, but it could’ve been a walk-off homer.

(For more from “Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Sends Three Messages” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A New World Order: Brought to You by the Global-Industrial Deep State

There are those who will tell you that any mention of a New World Order government—a power elite conspiring to rule the world—is the stuff of conspiracy theories.

I am not one of those skeptics.

What’s more, I wholeheartedly believe that one should always mistrust those in power, take alarm at the first encroachment on one’s liberties, and establish powerful constitutional checks against government mischief and abuse.

I can also attest to the fact that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I have studied enough of this country’s history—and world history—to know that governments (the U.S. government being no exception) are at times indistinguishable from the evil they claim to be fighting, whether that evil takes the form of terrorism, torture, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, murder, violence, theft, pornography, scientific experimentations or some other diabolical means of inflicting pain, suffering and servitude on humanity.

And I have lived long enough to see many so-called conspiracy theories turn into cold, hard fact.

Remember, people used to scoff at the notion of a Deep State (a.k.a. Shadow Government), doubt that fascism could ever take hold in America, and sneer at any suggestion that the United States was starting to resemble Nazi Germany in the years leading up to Hitler’s rise to power.

We’re beginning to know better, aren’t we?

The Deep State (“a national-security apparatus that holds sway even over the elected leaders notionally in charge of it”) is real…

Given all that we know about the U.S. government—that it treats its citizens like faceless statistics and economic units to be bought, sold, bartered, traded, and tracked; that it repeatedly lies, cheats, steals, spies, kills, maims, enslaves, breaks the laws, overreaches its authority, and abuses its power at almost every turn; and that it wages wars for profit, jails its own people for profit, and has no qualms about spreading its reign of terror abroad—it is not a stretch to suggest that the government has been overtaken by global industrialists, a new world order, that do not have our best interests at heart.

Indeed, to anyone who’s been paying attention to the goings-on in the world, it is increasingly obvious that we’re already under a new world order, and it is being brought to you by the Global-Industrial Deep State, a powerful cabal made up of international government agencies and corporations.

It is as yet unclear whether the American Police State answers to the Global-Industrial Deep State, or whether the Global-Industrial Deep State merely empowers the American Police State. However, there is no denying the extent to which they are intricately and symbiotically enmeshed and interlocked.

This marriage of governmental and corporate interests is the very definition of fascism.

Where we go wrong is in underestimating the threat of fascism: it is no longer a national threat but has instead become a global menace.

Consider the extent to which our lives and liberties are impacted by this international convergence of governmental and profit-driven interests in the surveillance state, the military industrial complex, the private prison industry, the intelligence sector, the technology sector, the telecommunications sector, the transportation sector, and the pharmaceutical industry.

All of these sectors are dominated by mega-corporations operating on a global scale and working through government channels to increase their profit margins: Walmart, Alphabet (formerly Google), AT&T, Toyota, Apple, Exxon Mobil, Facebook, Lockheed Martin, Berkshire Hathaway, UnitedHealth Group, Samsung, Amazon, Verizon, Nissan, Boeing, Microsoft, Northrop Grumman, Citigroup… these are just a few of the global corporate giants whose profit-driven policies influence everything from legislative policies to economics to environmental issues to medical care.

The U.S. government’s deep-seated and, in many cases, top secret alliances with foreign nations and global corporations are redrawing the boundaries of our world (and our freedoms) and altering the playing field faster than we can keep up.

Global Surveillance

Spearheaded by the National Security Agency (NSA), which has shown itself to care little for constitutional limits or privacy, the surveillance state has come to dominate our government and our lives.

Yet the government does not operate alone.

It cannot.

It requires an accomplice.

Thus, the increasingly complex security needs of our massive federal government, especially in the areas of defense, surveillance and data management, have been met within the corporate sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on and feeds the growth of governmental bureaucracy.

Take AT&T, for instance. Through its vast telecommunications network that crisscrosses the globe, AT&T provides the U.S. government with the complex infrastructure it needs for its mass surveillance programs. According to The Intercept, “The NSA considers AT&T to be one of its most trusted partners and has lauded the company’s ‘extreme willingness to help.’It is a collaboration that dates back decades. Little known, however, is that its scope is not restricted to AT&T’s customers. According to the NSA’s documents, it values AT&T not only because it ‘has access to information that transits the nation,’ but also because it maintains unique relationships with other phone and internet providers. The NSA exploits these relationships for surveillance purposes, commandeering AT&T’s massive infrastructure and using it as a platform to covertly tap into communications processed by other companies.”

Now magnify what the U.S. government is doing through AT&T on a global scale, and you have the “14 Eyes Program,” also referred to as the “SIGINT Seniors.” This global spy agency is made up of members from around the world (United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Norway, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Sweden, Spain, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, India and all British Overseas Territories).

Surveillance is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to these global alliances, however.

Global War Profiteering

War has become a huge money-making venture, and America, with its vast military empire and its incestuous relationship with a host of international defense contractors, is one of its best buyers and sellers. In fact, as Reuters reports, “[President] Trump has gone further than any of his predecessors to act as a salesman for the U.S. defense industry.”

The American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope, one dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth. For example, while erecting a security surveillance state in the U.S., the military-industrial complex has perpetuated a worldwide military empire with American troops stationed in 177 countries (over 70% of the countries worldwide).

Although the federal government obscures so much about its defense spending that accurate figures are difficult to procure, we do know that since 2001, the U.S. government has spent more than $1.8 trillion in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (that’s $8.3 million per hour). That doesn’t include wars and military exercises waged around the globe, which are expected to push the total bill upwards of $12 trillion by 2053.

The illicit merger of the global armaments industry and the Pentagon that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us against more than 50 years ago has come to represent perhaps the greatest threat to the nation’s fragile infrastructure today. America’s expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour)—and that’s just what the government spends on foreign wars. That does not include the cost of maintaining and staffing the 1000-plus U.S. military bases spread around the globe.

Incredibly, although the U.S. constitutes only 5% of the world’s population, America boasts almost 50% of the world’s total military expenditure, spending more on the military than the next 19 biggest spending nations combined. In fact, the Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety. There’s a good reason why “bloated,” “corrupt” and “inefficient” are among the words most commonly applied to the government, especially the Department of Defense and its contractors. Price gouging has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire.

It’s not just the American economy that is being gouged, unfortunately.

Driven by a greedy defense sector, the American homeland has been transformed into a battlefield with militarized police and weapons better suited to a war zone. Trump, no different from his predecessors, has continued to expand America’s military empire abroad and domestically, calling on Congress to approve billions more to hire cops, build more prisons and wage more profit-driven war-on-drugs/war-on-terrorism/war-on-crime programs that pander to the powerful money interests (military, corporate and security) that run the Deep State and hold the government in its clutches.

Global Policing

Glance at pictures of international police forces and you will have a hard time distinguishing between American police and those belonging to other nations. There’s a reason they all look alike, garbed in the militarized, weaponized uniform of a standing army.

There’s a reason why they act alike, too, and speak a common language of force.

For example, Israel—one of America’s closest international allies and one of the primary yearly recipients of more than $3 billion in U.S. foreign military aid—has been at the forefront of a little-publicized exchange program aimed at training American police to act as occupying forces in their communities. As The Intercept sums it up, American police are “essentially taking lessons from agencies that enforce military rule rather than civil law.”

Then you have the Strong Cities Network program. Funded by the State Department, the U.S. government has partnered with the United Nations to fight violent extremism “in all of its forms and manifestations” in cities and communities across the world. Working with the UN, the federal government rolled out programs to train local police agencies across America in how to identify, fight and prevent extremism, as well as address intolerance within their communities, using all of the resources at their disposal. The cities included in the global network include New York City, Atlanta, Denver, Minneapolis, Paris, London, Montreal, Beirut and Oslo.

What this program is really all about, however, is community policing on a global scale.

Community policing, which relies on a “broken windows” theory of policing, calls for police to engage with the community in order to prevent local crime by interrupting or preventing minor offenses before they could snowball into bigger, more serious and perhaps violent crime.

It sounds like a good idea on paper, but the problem with the broken windows approach is that it has led to zero tolerance policing and stop-and-frisk practices among other harsh police tactics.

When applied to the Strong Cities Network program, the objective is ostensibly to prevent violent extremism by targeting its source: racism, bigotry, hatred, intolerance, etc. In other words, police—acting ostensibly as extensions of the United Nations—will identify, monitor and deter individuals who exhibit, express or engage in anything that could be construed as extremist.

Of course, the concern with the government’s anti-extremism program is that it will, in many cases, be utilized to render otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist. Keep in mind that the government agencies involved in ferreting out American “extremists” will carry out their objectives—to identify and deter potential extremists—in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.

Are you starting to get the picture now?

We’re the sitting ducks in the government’s crosshairs.

On almost every front, whether it’s the war on drugs, or the sale of weapons, or regulating immigration, or establishing prisons, or advancing technology, if there is a profit to be made and power to be amassed, you can bet that the government and its global partners have already struck a deal that puts the American people on the losing end of the bargain.

Unless we can put the brakes on this dramatic expansion, globalization and merger of governmental and corporate powers, we’re not going to recognize this country 20 years from now.

It’s taken less than a generation for our freedoms to be eroded and the police state structure to be erected, expanded and entrenched.

Rest assured that the U.S. government will not save us from the chains of the global police state.

The current or future occupant of the White House will not save us.

For that matter, anarchy, violence and incivility will not save us.

Unfortunately, the government’s divide and conquer tactics are working like a charm.

Despite the laundry list of grievances that should unite “we the people” in common cause against the government, the nation is more divided than ever by politics, by socio-economics, by race, by religion, and by every other distinction that serves to highlight our differences.

The real and manufactured events of recent years—the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers—have all conjoined to create an environment in which “we the people” are more divided, more distrustful, and fearful of each other.

What we have failed to realize is that in the eyes of the government, we’re all the same.

In other words, when it’s time for the government to crack down—and that time is coming—it won’t matter whether we voted Republican or Democrat, whether we marched on Washington or stayed home, or whether we spoke out against government misconduct and injustice or remained silent.

When the government and its Global-Industrial Deep State partners in the New World Order crack down, we’ll all suffer.

If there is to be any hope of freeing ourselves, it rests—as it always has—at the local level, with you and your fellow citizens taking part in grassroots activism, which takes a trickle-up approach to governmental reform by implementing change at the local level.

One of the most important contributions an individual citizen can make is to become actively involved in local community affairs, politics and legal battles. As the adage goes, “Think globally, act locally.”

America was meant to be primarily a system of local governments, which is a far cry from the colossal federal bureaucracy we have today. Yet if our freedoms are to be restored, understanding what is transpiring practically in your own backyard—in one’s home, neighborhood, school district, town council—and taking action at that local level must be the starting point.

Responding to unmet local needs and reacting to injustices is what grassroots activism is all about. Attend local city council meetings, speak up at town hall meetings, organize protests and letter-writing campaigns, employ “militant nonviolent resistance” and civil disobedience, which Martin Luther King Jr. used to great effect through the use of sit-ins, boycotts and marches.

And then, as I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, if there is any means left to us for thwarting the government in its relentless march towards outright dictatorship, it may rest with the power of communities and local governments to invalidate governmental laws, tactics and policies that are illegitimate, egregious or blatantly unconstitutional.

Nullification works.

Nullify the court cases. Nullify the laws. Nullify everything the government does that flies in the face of the principles on which this nation was founded.

We could transform this nation if only Americans would work together to harness the power of their discontent. (For more from the author of “A New World Order: Brought to You by the Global-Industrial Deep State” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Democrats Love Socialism Because They Want to Take Your Stuff and Enslave You

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is less hideously unattractive than the usual Democrat potentate or potentatette and has therefore been anointed the new face of her pathetic party. This dumb woman, who looks like Huma Abedin without the pedohubby and the weird relationship with Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit, took advantage of her even dumber New York district in order to get elected to Congress by calling herself a “socialist.” Yeah, the subject of a thousand Trader Joe’s house brand chardonnay toasts is a proud adherent of the ideology that butchered 100 million people in the last century.

Considering how much mainstream liberals hate us Normal Americans for militantly defending our rights, it’s no surprise that they are looking to their leftist ancestors for some helpful hints about how to deal with us uppity, kulak-y obstacles to their rightful and permanent domination of society . . .

It’s amusing that so many of us Normals understand socialism better than the socialists do not only in terms of what Marx said, and what history says, but in terms of firsthand knowledge. A lot of us Normals have seen socialism up close and personal. Guys like me actually went and lived in its ruins. If you spent significant time, as I have, in the former Yugoslavia, or Ukraine, or even helping to guard the West German border from those friendly fraternal socialist dudes to the east, you’ll be stripped of any illusions about that garbage ideology.

Socialism is about taking your stuff and your freedom and killing you if you complain. They try to pass it off as just Liberalism 2.0, but then you usually don’t call something by a name unless you mean it. If they don’t mean “socialism,” why do they call themselves “socialists?”

They use the term, counting on the stupidity of people educated in public schools (Yah government!), but they are coy about what they really mean. They always point to Sweden and Denmark and Norway when they talk about “socialism,” as if those were their role models (and as if America was full of Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians instead of being a melting pot of immigrants with a radically different history and culture). Yet, how come we always see the most excited champagne socialists trekking off to visit the dictators in Havana and Caracas and not the elected leaders in Stockholm, Copenhagen, and Oslo? (Read more from “Democrats Love Socialism Because They Want to Take Your Stuff and Enslave You” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Democrats’ ‘Resist’ Strategy Against President Trump Is Backfiring

Democrats’ “Resist” strategy against President Trump is backfiring. Polling data shows the extreme statements and policies used by Democrats are boomeranging back on them. Polls on fake news, immigration, and the Senate vote to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court show that the public strongly supports President Trump.

If the current trend continues, the blue wave will end up as a ripple and will deliver a devastating blow to the Left’s hopes of turning Congress to Democrat control.

The Left went all out to slam President Trump’s zero-tolerance policy at the U.S.-Mexico border. Democrat politicians, the left-wing media, far-left activists, and Hollywood elites went wild. They fired their full arsenal to exploit the emotion surrounding children separated from their parents after illegally crossing the border.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the separation of children from their parents was “barbaric” and added “… this is not who America is …”. Senator Kamala Harris, D-Calif., called for Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to resign; actor Alan Alda asked if it was proper for the U.S. “to use emotional torture for border control” in a tweet; and MSNBC host Rachel Maddow cried on her show discussing the issue. Just in case the public missed Maddow’s tears live, the Washington Post wrote a story about her emotional reaction to guarantee national news coverage.

However, the Left’s hope to take political leverage over child separation at the southern border failed, according to a recent Harvard/Harris poll conducted on June 24 and 25.

The poll found that 70 percent of registered voters want stricter enforcement of immigration laws, 66 percent think illegal aliens who cross the border should be sent home, and 61 percent think illegal alien parents who cross the border with children should be sent home.

While 61 percent blamed the Trump administration for separating children from their parents, 71 percent strongly backed President Trump’s decision to issue the executive order to keep children together with their parents after illegally crossing the border.

Democrat and left-wing activists’ calls to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were soundly rejected; 68 percent do not want ICE disbanded.

Upping the emotional amplitude on childhood separations resulted in the public harassment of members of the Trump administration risking further alienation of the public from the Democrat Party. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen were harassed in two separate instances in restaurants by left-wing activists.

The extremism from the Left is getting so out of hand that Democrat leaders made an effort to douse the flames before they result in voter backlash or, even worse, violence. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Pelosi criticized Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., over her comments urging public harassment of Trump administration officials.

The Democrat leaders’ effort to sway Waters failed, and she doubled down on her call for using aggressive tactics. Waters’ pushback against Democrat leaders is getting backup. About 200 black women and allies wrote a letter to Schumer and Pelosi supporting Waters.

The left-wing media’s effort to use its power and influence to harm President Trump is destroying news outlets’ credibility. According to a poll conducted by Axios/SurveyMonkey, 72 percent of adults in the U.S. think “traditional major news sources report news they know to be fake, false, or purposely misleading.” So almost three-quarters of adults believe the media is driven by politics, not the truth.

A breakdown of the results by political identification found a significant percent of Independents (79 percent) believe the media twists the facts and a majority of Democrats (53 percent) felt the same way.

Democrats’ messaging on the Supreme Court vacancy also shows that the public is growing tired of the “resist President Trump” strategy. Senator Schumer wants the Senate vote on the new Supreme Court nominee to come after the midterm elections, adding it would be the “height of hypocrisy” to hold a vote before the November elections. Schumer used the decision by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell not to vote on former President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland before the 2016 election as the basis of his criticism.

Public opinion is not on Schumer’s side. A recent NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll found that 62 percent of U.S. adults believe President Trump’s Supreme Court pick should be voted on before November.

The public is rejecting the “resist President Trump” strategy, casting serious doubt on the hope of a blue wave this fall. (For more from the author of “Democrats’ ‘Resist’ Strategy Against President Trump Is Backfiring” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Democrats’ 2018 Slogan Is a Godsend for Republicans

Democrats love frivolous slogans. The party that brought us “Bush Lied, People Died” (he didn’t) to “No War For Oil” (there wasn’t) has now delivered Republicans an election year boon with just two simple words: “Abolish ICE.” Democrats ranging from Statue of Liberty scaling activists to congressional candidates to bona fide U.S. senators have adopted the motto, which demands the dissolution of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The embrace of “Abolish ICE” as a campaign trail motto exposes Democrats as the party of ignorance, lawlessness, and open borders. All three are big losers with the American people, and Republicans should troll Democrats into shouting, “Abolish ICE!” at every turn.

ICE, which stands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security. Democrats have recently targeted the agency for separating illegal alien families at the U.S. border with Mexico. While the family separation policy has existed since 1997 and was robustly enforced at various points during the Obama administration with nary a peep from Democrats, the great irony is that it isn’t ICE separating families at the border. Rather, it’s up to Customs and Border Protection, which operates Border Patrol, to arrest foreign nationals crossing the southern border illegally. Democrats calls to “abolish ICE” for separating families at the border illustrate their ignorance of the very laws they wish to ignore.

But while Democrats are frequently wrong, they’re never in doubt. They may not know what ICE does, but their demand to abolish it highlights their increasing lawlessness. In recent weeks, a major Democrat lawmaker has openly called for mob terror against Republican officials. Left-wing commentators and activists within such movements as Black Lives Matter have suggested abolishing the police—whatever that means. The New York Democratic Socialists of America, of which Democrat congressional nominee Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member, recently declared, “Abolish ICE. Abolish prisons. Abolish cash bail. Abolish borders.” By taking aim at law enforcement per se, Democrats offer a vision of America governed not by duly enacted law passed by representative institutions but rather a country governed by the caprices and prejudices of men, popular sovereignty be damned. (Read more from “Democrats’ 2018 Slogan Is a Godsend for Republicans” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.