How to Corrupt Children for Fun and Profit

I went to an out-of-state sporting event recently and was surprised to see that a youth dance-and-drumming troupe from my city, just a couple of blocks from our house, preceded us there. The boys drummed, and the girls danced.

At halftime, they marched from the lobby onto the basketball court. They had remarkable stage presence. They knew how to hold an audience’s attention, starting with the throbbing, thunderous pulse of the drums. The girls strode in with eye contact from heads held high, a procession rather than a mere entrance.

Then, at center court, the dancing began. It was quite skillful, even acrobatic. An adult man crouched at courtside holding up fingers and gesticulating to direct the girls. They appeared to range from six or seven years of age to mid-teens.

As the pace quickened and the percussion loudened, the girls’ dancing changed. By the time the drumming climaxed, their dance was vulgar and salacious.

If the crouching man had posted a video of these children’s dance online, instead of presenting them live in a college gymnasium, he might have had legal difficulties. If some of these girls were adults, including some who appeared to be fifth-graders, they would have all the requisite exotic dance moves for employment in an Atlanta strip club.

The audience was mostly middle-aged and older small-town Midwestern folks. They were too polite not to applaud the youngsters who had obviously worked so hard, and traveled so far to entertain them. But they must have thought to themselves that something has gone terribly wrong in America.

There are a lot of good people investing themselves in the encouragement and moral formation of children and adolescents in this country, but we have also trusted some of the wrong people with our children.

Whoever corrupted those little girls should experience strong community disapproval, maybe criminal prosecution. If I were the parent or grandparent of one of those girls, I don’t think I’d be waiting for the prosecutors to take action.

But how much better it would be to proactively intervene and prevent children’s victimization in the first place. We’ve got to be more suspicious, and more assertive. Don’t ever let glib, articulate predators’ allies talk you out of protecting your youngsters. You are under no obligation to accommodate their access to your children.

Child corruption is big business, of course. It’s institutionalized in the music and television industries, and the watchdogs have been compromised.

The Gannett media chain, that recently took over the daily newspaper in my town, has starkly misrepresented public opinion about indecency, and there’s no reason to believe that will ever change. The mainstream media rarely take indecency seriously, except when it serves as a criticism of Donald Trump.

There is no appeasing these people. They respect no boundaries. There is no wholesome refuge from them that they will voluntarily accord us and our families.

Currently, my library is funding and actively collaborating with the San Francisco-based “Drag Queen Story Hour,” in which dolled-up transvestites are invited to read stories to small children.

This travesty has its own national network that solicits contributions by PayPal to San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York City offices. ” Drag Queen Story Hour is just what it sounds like,” according to its website, “drag queens reading stories to children in libraries, schools and bookstores.”

The Gannett machine in our town justified the Story Hour with “science” that indicates people with at least one LGBTQ acquaintance are more likely to support gay marriage. “Acceptance,” according to Gannett, is a virtue worthy of public funding and the exposure of small children to transvestites.

But is it? If so, perhaps we should denounce Martin Luther King for his lack of acceptance of Jim Crow. Perhaps the French Resistance was regrettable for its narrow-minded failure to accept the Nazi occupation of their country.

Come on, Gannett, acceptance is a neutral term and its virtue depends on the merits of the thing being accepted. And to accept the Drag Queen Story Hour’s access to our community’s smallest children would be cavalier, if not cowardly.

Gannett claims the benefits of reading to children justify the library’s Drag Queen event. They write that there is no sexual subject matter in the children’s books that are read by the transvestites.

But the drag queens’ own website tells a different story. “Drag Queen Story Hour captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models,” according to the website. “In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where people can present as they wish, where dress-up is real.”

This is OK with the Public Library Association (PLA), which called the Drag Queen Story Hour a “remarkable and important initiative that promotes acceptance and inclusivity.”

The PLA presented a seminar, entitled “Reading Fabulously,” at its annual convention last year listing “best practices” for setting up a Drag Queen Story Hour, and “which titles best support a program for young people exploring gender fluidity.”

The PLA seminar description promised that attendees would “be prepared with strategies and language to explain and, if necessary, defend groundbreaking and potentially controversial programming.”

Will it be necessary? Will we ever dig in our heels against the child corrupters? Drag Queen Story Hour may be a good barometer on American parental apathy: if we don’t mobilize against this shameful campaign by depraved transvestites, public libraries, Gannett and all the other crouching men to corrode our children’s moral character before they can even read, our abandonment of the children may be complete.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Should Revisit 3 Executive Powers to Break the Border Impasse

If we consent to the notion that the president is prohibited from following the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and his inherent executive authority to stop this invasion, then there’s nothing we can do, and we as may as well cede the presidency to Kamala Harris. But if the president is willing to use his lawful powers and more aggressively push back against lawless lower court opinions and their illegal universal injunctions, there is a lot he can do. By credibly threatening to use executive action based on lawful powers, the president can upend Pelosi’s leverage.

The first step is for the president to communicate his message directly to the American people. There is no way around that. This entire battle is one of messaging.

There is a reason Pelosi denied the president the platform of the State of the Union by taking the unprecedented step of disinviting him to speak before the House. She knows that for the president to speak in in the traditional presidential manner for a full hour, laying out the evils of open borders and the danger of her policies empowering the cartels, will reframe the debate over this issue. Yet by disinviting Trump, Pelosi gave him an even bigger platform … if Trump is willing to use it.

To that end, the president should reconsider his decision to scuttle the State of the Union and deliver it at a venue on the border flanked by law enforcement and Angel Families. He should use imagery to depict the severity of the problem caused by Pelosi’s preferred immigration policies and that this has gone on long enough. This speech, because of its unique circumstances, would get more viewers and look better for the president than anything he could have done in the House chamber. In some ways, it would be the most dramatic use of the bully pulpit ever.

After Trump shows how severe the problem of illegal immigration is, he should lay out the following strategy, threats, and demands.

Threaten executive action

As long as Trump makes it clear that he cannot do anything to stop the invasion without Pelosi caving, she will not cave. But the minute he makes it clear that he will act unilaterally anyway, it will change the dynamic. Accordingly, Trump needs to make it clear that the difference between his and Obama’s use of executive action boils down to the Constitution and our existing statutes. Obama violated them in order to subvert sovereignty; Trump will follow the INA in order to preserve sovereignty and national security. He should then promise to revisit three ideas he seemingly has backed away from: ending the illegal DACA amnesty, shutting off all border migration, and using a military buildup to construct border infrastructure.


How can a district judge tell the president he must continue Obama’s illegal amnesty? Trump needs to tell the American people that statute tells him these people must be deported, while a district judge, forum-shopped by the Left, says otherwise. He must follow statute. Nobody can challenge his use of executive action when that action itself is a mere reversal of Obama’s unprecedented action. He should explain the illegality of these rulings based on statute, rules of standing, and the fiction of universal injunctions.

Remember, the Judge William Alsup said very clearly that he was not saying DACA “could not be rescinded as an exercise of Executive Branch discretion,” he just disagreed with the way in which Trump got rid of it. While the judge was still off his rocker, nothing is stopping Trump from ending DACA now.

Trump can’t have it both ways. He can’t treat DACA as an important negotiation tactic for amnesty but then agree to the legal premise that he must do it and the political premise that it’s “the right thing to do.” He needs to give Democrats the impression that he will get rid of it. Right now, Democrats have no reason to deal with Trump because they are getting a permanent de facto extension of non-immigrant visas for those amnesty recipients indefinitely. Thus, they will wait Trump out for an even better deal on a more expansive amnesty. But if Trump threatens to take from them what they already think they have in the bag, it will change the negotiations.

Shut down all border migration

Nobody can ever credibly argue that a president lacks inherent executive authority as well as delegated authority to shut down all migration at our border, no matter how a judge wants to erroneously create loopholes in asylum. Article II powers over foreign commerce and INA 212(f) override all immigration, including legitimate immigration programs. This power has never been challenged, and indeed, the Supreme Court just upheld it last year. For a single district judge, Jon Tigar, to come along and give standing to random political groups to sue for caravan invaders outside our country is beyond laughable, and Trump needs to make that judge and his capricious rationale famous in his speech. He must build the case that no district judge can put an injunction on the power to control who crosses our border.

Threaten a military buildup

You know what we need more than a partial border wall, at least in the short term? A serious military operation at our border. If we can’t understand the threat the cartels pose to our nation and the cost in terms of thousands of homicides, drugs, gangs, and financial burdens, we have no business being a sovereign nation. If a president can deploy troops in 140 countries without authorization from Congress, then you better believe a president can repel an invasion when cartels are on our soil directing their operations. Even Joe Biden called for such a military operation decades ago when the cartels weren’t nearly as powerful.

It’s time for Trump to announce that the days of the evil cartels hurting Americans and Mexicans are over, and he will turn our military on them. Just the threat of doing so will shake up the cartels beyond belief. And once he beefs up the military presence, it’s much easier for him to use DOD funding to build infrastructure.

Make Democrats take tough votes

Once Trump asserts the threat to employ lawful and thoughtful executive action to stop the border invasion, he should then lay out a series of demands for Democrats covering all aspects of illegal immigration. He should call upon McConnell to make Democrats take a series of tough votes that will now be backed by the threat of executive action regardless of what they do in Congress.

Here’s how the strategy would work:

Step 1: Pay our agents

The time has come for Trump to call upon McConnell to force a vote on funding law enforcement working during the partial shutdown. The bill should require immediate pay for agencies like Border Patrol, ICE, FBI, DEA, TSA, and the Coast Guard. That’ll still leave the nonessential agencies on the table (many of which probably don’t need to exist) while daring Democrats in the Senate to vote against pay for law enforcement. I’d force Democrats to hold the floor and continuously block the bill. Right now, Senate Republicans are doing nothing while Pelosi passes her bills out of the House. This will shift the momentum.

Step 2: Deny pay to the cartels

The cartels are making a killing off the judicially created loopholes in our laws. McConnell should force votes on ending the Flores settlement, which is what is incentivizing family units to come with children (sometimes not even their own) and get quasi-amnesty through catch-and-release. He should also make them take tough votes on welfare benefits for illegal aliens and clamping down on identity theft.

Step 3: Stop illegals from murdering Americans

The Senate should also force votes on a bill named after murdered officer Ronil Singh. Every illegal alien homicide, by definition, is avoidable because the illegal aliens shouldn’t be in the country. However, most of them are doubly avoidable because most murderers usually have prior rap sheets and are picked up for “lesser” crimes. This is the enduring lesson of Ronil Singh’s murderer, who was picked up twice by cops for DUI but was never turned over to ICE.

As of fiscal year 2013, we already had 1.9 million criminal aliens in this country, yet almost none of them have been deported, and that number is likely much higher now. Republicans need to mandate immediate apprehension and deportation of all criminal aliens and cut off funding to any locality that fails to turn over illegal aliens arrested for crimes, including DUIs and drug trafficking. Interior enforcement is the key, and voting against it is radioactive for certain Democrats if Republicans actually forced a sustained debate over it.

The bottom line is that Democrats have never been forced to defend all their indefensible positions, nor have they felt any urgency to change course. Trump has a bully pulpit that nobody ever had; he wields the executive powers to follow immigration law and block foreign invasions that every president has had; and his party still has control over the Senate, where he can embarrass Democrats with one vote after another.

There is no silver bullet strategy after years of messaging failures by the GOP on the immigration issue. But declining to use the bully pulpit, failing to force Democrats to take tough votes, and negotiating down on amnesty without any executive leverage is surely a recipe for disaster. (For more from the author of “Trump Should Revisit 3 Executive Powers to Break the Border Impasse” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

IIhan Omar’s Rise Demonstrates What’s So Twisted About Identity Politics

In the few short weeks she has represented Minnesota’s fifth district in the U.S. Congress, Democrat IIhan Omar has become a controversial figure. She smeared Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) over baseless accusations, garnered national recognition for wearing a hijab in Congress, and has already been placed in a leadership position on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

This inexperienced congresswoman has created a stir despite accomplishing little so far, and her win demonstrates the epitome of identity politics. A close look at her election and subsequent quick rise to fame exemplifies the cautions that accompany such a mistake. . .

Omar, 36, became an overnight sensation in Minnesota when she became the first Somali-American to serve in the state legislature. After one term, the fellow Muslim set her sights on former Rep. Keith Ellison’s congressional seat. The fifth district is in urban Minneapolis, where Somali-Americans number in the tens of thousands.

Ellison, himself renowned for long ties with anti-Semitism, has been somewhat of a mentor for Omar. Asking voters to replace him with her meant little practical political change in the district. Ellison won nearly 69 percent of votes cast during his 2016 race. In 2018, Omar won about 78 percent of votes, although in Ellison’s race there was an Independent and in Omar’s race there was not.

At a candidate forum in August, Omar was asked to clarify her position on the anti-Israel boycott, divestment, sanctions movement. She said, “I believe right now with the BDS movement, it’s not helpful in getting that two-state solution.” After she was elected, however, Omar said she did support BDS. (Read more from “IIhan Omar’s Rise Demonstrates What’s So Twisted About Identity Politics” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Conservatives Are Facing Failure in the Senate Unless Trump Changes Strategy

Last year, I made a list of 25 slam-dunk immigration bills that the Senate should consider on the floor to show that Democrats care more about illegal immigrants than about Americans. Over the past month, with the national focus finally turning to immigration as the top issue, McConnell should have been holding one vote after another on these issues. Instead, he was dead silent. Now he is scheduling two votes for Thursday – one on an amnesty bill with border funding, and the other on the Democrat bill to fund government without fixing the border invasion. Thus, rather than trying to throw a touchdown, he is either tossing an interception or an incompletion. Why not vote on something good?

When Trump announced his amnesty offer, many conservatives downplayed the concerns about the bill by noting that Democrats would reject it anyway, all part of a Trump chess plan to expose their radical intransigence. The problem, as I noted on Monday, is that “once Trump officially blesses the idea of amnesty in this context, Senate Republicans will run with this. They will allow Democrats to negotiate down further, and we’ll be left with a few billion dollars, no policy changes to fix a policy problem, and a new amnesty.”

Now, based on the text of the legislation introduced, there is not such a concern that the amnesty bill will actually pass, because it does contain at least a few good provisions that Democrats will never support. However, McConnell is unwisely allowing a side-by-side vote – together with Trump’s proposal – on a Democrat bill that would fund all of government through February 8 without any immigration fixes or border funding.

Ultimately, not only is this broader strategy bad messaging and alleviates the pressure on Democrats, who are radically out of touch with the American people on illegal immigration, it might give Democrats an outright victory.

A slippery slope to getting nothing on the border … or worse

The first vote on Thursday will be on a $354.5 billion omnibus package (H.R. 648) that funds the seven departments currently unfunded for the remainder of fiscal year 2019. The bill contains an extra $12 billion in disaster aid, as we well as the president’s request for 234 miles of border fencing, more detention beds, hiring more ICE and Border Patrol, and more technology funding at and between points of entry. The problem is that this bill also adds amnesty for Obama’s DACA aliens plus 300,000 illegal aliens who are illegally given temporary protected status. The bill also keeps the language from last year’s omnibus barring Trump from using the original prototype for any part of the new wall.

Finally, the Senate bill doubles the H-2B visa cap for what is essentially non-agriculture slave labor, a provision that was not in the White House outline. This should reveal to all of us the true motivations of many Senate Republicans and why they are still not serious about stopping illegal immigration. They actually like illegal immigration because it keeps the labor trafficking for their donors flowing.

The final text of what is being dubbed “the Trump deal” does contain some tightening of asylum. It requires that Central American teenagers designated as UACs only apply for asylum outside America. This would be an awesome reform if it applied to everyone. The problem is that the bill bizarrely targets only UACs for asylum reform, when the UACs have their own loophole, which is not directly fixed in this bill. They don’t use asylum. It’s the family units that abuse asylum and can still do so under this bill.

Nonetheless, because of this and several other provisions, almost no Democrat will touch this bill with a 10-foot pole. It won’t pass the Senate.

It would be one thing for conservatives to vote for this amnesty bill and then, after it’s voted down, proceed to dozens of important bills targeting illegal immigration. But McConnell has offered Democrats a second vote. They will vote on the Democrats’ House bill that would continue funding for all of government at existing levels through February 8, with no border fix.

The conventional wisdom is that both bills will fail, more or less along party lines. However, if you add up the number of Republicans who are terrified of the shutdown and who never really cared about the border to begin with, it’s not hard to understand how McConnell is playing with a forest fire here. It would be one thing if the Democrat bill lasted until the end of the year. That would be a capitulation too far for most Republicans. But it’s easy to see a scenario where enough Republicans say, “Look, we need to get government back up and running. This is only for a few weeks and this will allow us to negotiate without such collateral damage.”

Of course, were that to happen, our leverage is gone until after the next election.

This is all the more likely if the Democrat CR vote takes place after the Trump bill gets defeated and the RINOs could then say, “This is our only choice.” Even if it fails to get 60 votes, if Democrats can peel off five to ten Republicans, it will really give momentum for a clean cave, or worse.

Axios is reporting that Jared Kushner and Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., both big proponents of amnesty, are working to push permanent amnesty. They want to “go big.” Remember, too many Republicans support amnesty, even as a stand-alone without anything in return. Certainly, they’d support it for a few billion in border funding and for an escape from this shutdown, which they view as a living hell. This became the problem the minute Trump changed course from demanding enforcement votes and made this about some form of amnesty. As we’ve noted many times before, if all we get for amnesty is mere border funding and no policy changes, we should just open up the government for nothing. An incompletion is better than an interception.

A better way forward for Trump

Why not attempt a touchdown? Rather than offering amnesty as a way of “exposing” Democrat intransigence, thereby risking a runaway train with liberal Republican senators, Trump should marginalize Democrats with a demand to pay our law enforcement agents – Border Patrol, ICE, FBI, DEA, TSA, and the Coast Guard – until a full funding bill can be crafted.

Next, Trump should demand McConnell hold votes on a bill to cut off the magnets for illegal immigration. “Pay our agents, not the cartels.” There should be a bill named after Ronil Singh, the police officer killed by a known criminal alien, to mandate immediate apprehension and deportation of all criminal aliens and cut off funding to any locality that fails to turn over illegal aliens arrested for gang activity and other crimes, including DUIs and drug trafficking. Singh was killed by an illegal alien gangbanger who was arrested twice for DUI but was never turned over. We need a national debate over the deaths of Singh and other American victims, not over amnesty for these very violent young males coming from Central America.

Concurrently, Trump should threaten Democrats that he will build up the military on our border, something he should do anyway, which would then enable him to open up a number of defense accounts to build the wall. The threat of getting what he wants without a bill will bring Democrats to the table.

You know what else will bring Democrats to the table? If Trump finally does the right thing with DACA and announces that he can no longer defy the statute because of an illegal universal injunction by a lower court. With Chief Justice Roberts and possibly other justices playing politics at the Supreme Court and allowing what is perhaps the most dangerous and illegal decision ever made by a lower court stand, Trump needs to follow the law and terminate Obama’s amnesty. That will force the Supreme Court to take up the case and ruin Democrat leverage on the issue.

Unless Republicans finally go on offense and try to score points, this saga will just end in an interception with permanent amnesty. In that case, it’s better just to pass a budget bill and call it quits. (For more from the author of “Conservatives Are Facing Failure in the Senate Unless Trump Changes Strategy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Everyone Who Takes on Trump Ends up Crushed

By Townhall. What is this eerie power Donald Trump has to select the perfect enemies, enemies whose own myriad failings often cause them to commit ritual suicide whenever they face him? He usually doesn’t even have to do anything – these goofs do it to themselves.

His latest victim is BuzzFraud, that listcicle-curating web site for millennial geeks that had the mainstream media in a 24-hour festival of onanism over a report so full of Schumer that even Mueller and his pack of Democrat activists had to shout, “Yo, chill.” . . .

Nancy Pelosi made the mistake of buying her own hype and thinking she could go troll-to-troll against him. Big mistake. She thought she could high-hat him by kinda/sorta rescinding her State of the Union address invitation. “Take that!” sneered the mainstream media, pretending that her concern for security during the shutdown was the motivation and not her terror at the thought of the President having a huge audience hear him explain why the Democrat position of letting murderers, rapists, drug dealers and welfare cheats flood into our unprotected country is a bad idea. . .

So, Trump waits until she and the rest of her pals are on a bus ready to jet off to party in Europe with a fig leaf stopover in Afghanistan and then he pulls the plug. We get delightful footage of dejected ugly Americans filing off the bus, their boondoggle delayed until they do their damn job. Glorious. . .

See, Trump’s an equal opportunity brawler. It’s not just Democrats he smashes. It’s the Fredocons too. Take Mitt Romney, please, preferably to one of the Third World hellholes where he outsourced American jobs. He got crushed by Trump, and he’s still seething over how Trump publicly teased him with the Secretary of State job only to snatch it away at the last minute in front of everyone. Now, utilizing the keen instincts and street smarts that let him be publicly body-slammed by Candy Crowley, Mitt has decided to channel Jeff Flake and become the Voice of Neo-Conscience in the Senate. His Twitter feed could consist entirely of him tweeting “We’re better than that” and “Oh, well, I never!” (Read more from “Everyone Who Takes on Trump Ends up Crushed” HERE)

Pelosi Cancels “State of the Union”

By Kevin Liptak. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuffed President Donald Trump on Wednesday, saying she would not allow him to deliver his State of the Union in the House chamber while the government is shut down. . .

“I am writing to inform you that the House of Representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the President’s State of the Union address in the House Chamber until the government has opened,” Pelosi wrote.

Speaking from the White House Roosevelt Room as Pelosi’s letter became public, the President vowed to formally respond soon.

“I’m not surprised,” Trump said. “It’s really a shame what’s happening with the Democrats. They’ve become radicalized. They don’t want to see crime stopped.” (Read more from Trump’s Enemies Crushed HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Conservatives Should Be Wary About Dangling Amnesty for Partial Wall Funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump is already negotiating with himself in public:

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

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

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

The problem with an amnesty-driven negotiation

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

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

Here’s how this would look.

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

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

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

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

The worst of all worlds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Here’s How to Win the Shutdown Fight

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Why Shouldn’t President Trump Reconsider NATO?

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

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

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

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

NATO may have outlived its purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The president has successfully leveraged NATO allies to do more

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

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

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

POTUS has long been a skeptic of the NATO alliance.

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

NATO may rope us into unnecessary conflict

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

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

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

What does the Constitution say?

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

The bottom line

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

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

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Why Trump Will Win the Shutdown

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

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

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

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

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


Trump Urged to Temporarily Reopen Government

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE