New Poll Shows Americans Think Defense Spending Too Low, Military Too Weak

/0 Comments/in , /by

In 1990, with the fall of the Soviet Union and following eight years of military buildup under President Ronald Reagan, the American people seemed to agree: The United States was spending enough on the military.

Fast forward to 2017, and it’s obvious that sentiment has gone the way of the dinosaurs.

A Gallup poll released Thursday found that 37 percent of Americans believe the United States is not spending enough on the military, with 28 percent saying defense spending levels are “about right” and 31 percent saying spending is too high.

Nearly half of those polled (45 percent) also said they believed the U.S. military is “not strong enough,” compared to 11 percent who said the military is “stronger than it needs to be.” This result tracks closely with a Gallup poll from February 2016 in which only 49 percent of those surveyed thought the U.S. military was the most powerful worldwide.

Gallup noted that the 49 percent figure was the lowest recorded number in the polling group’s 23 years of tracking.

The February 2016 poll also showed almost identical numbers on Americans’ opinions of defense spending.

What these polls demonstrate is that the shortfalls facing the U.S. military are not just seen and recognized by military leaders, but by Americans across the nation. Given the state of military readiness and lack of modernization after years of sequestration and budget cuts, it is little wonder that public opinion continues to trend this direction.

In real constant dollars, the Department of Defense’s budget has declined 24 percent since 2011. Meanwhile, our enemies around the world have continued to enlarge their forces, modernize their equipment, and in some cases, engage in aggression against America’s allies.

By any measure, America is not spending enough to sustain its military in these times of increasing global threats.

As The Heritage Foundation reported in its 2017 Index of U.S. Military Strength, in the last five years as a result of diminishing budgets and operational overuse, the military has been sorely depleted.

The Army is smaller than it has been since World War II, the Navy since World War I, and the Air Force since its inception in 1947. And it is not just smaller—it is less ready.

Only three of the Army’s 58 brigade combat teams are ready to fight today. One-quarter of naval aircraft are flyable, and the Air Force is suffering from crippling pilot and maintenance personnel shortages.

Major weapon systems are aging and not being replaced. The average age of Air Force aircraft is 27 years old, while the Army has not been able to replace its main battle tank, already 37 years old.

>>>Defense Leaders Agree: US Military Readiness Is at a Dangerous Low

President Donald Trump has proposed a defense budget of $603 billion for fiscal year 2018, which on paper would increase defense spending by $54 billion. However, the Obama administration had already planned to spend $584 billion in 2018, and the military services have already prepared detailed plans to spend that amount.

A 2018 budget of $603 billion is about an $18 billion increase in the defense budget. While this is a welcome down payment on beginning the process of rebuilding the military in the coming years, it will not be enough to regrow the military, rebuild near-term readiness, and begin much-needed modernization programs.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz.—who recently released a white paper with his budget recommendations—and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, have criticized this increase as insufficient.

Lawmakers would be wise to push for a defense budget of around $632 billion.

The primary purpose of government is to care for and defend its citizens. What Gallup has shown is that those citizens believe the government needs to do more.

Hopefully, Congress and the administration can work together to provide the necessary funds in 2018 to begin rebuilding the military. (For more from the author of “New Poll Shows Americans Think Defense Spending Too Low, Military Too Weak” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

When Is It Time to Revolt? The 50 States vs. The Gigantic Vampiric Bureaucracy Known as the Federal Government

/0 Comments/in , , /by

People who can wake up care.

There are 50 countries in the US. They’re called states.

All right, that’s an exaggeration. They are states. But they could be countries.

If you don’t think so, consider the 2015 state budget of tiny Rhode Island: $8.9 billion. The 2016 budget for the nation of Somalia was $216 million.

The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States [government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The 11th Amendment reads: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”

If you combine these two Amendments, you begin to see the considerable powers granted to the states.

Of course, now, relatively few people care about these powers. They should, but they don’t.

The Civil War over the issue of slavery convinced a majority of Americans that states’ power was a bad thing—and it had to be remedied when high moral principles and intolerable suffering were at stake.

This premise was, however, expanded to include almost any issue on which the federal government wanted to assert its supremacy.

Which is where we are now.

And the Congress has been more than happy to cement that assertion of overweening federal power, by passing budgets that hand over huge sums of money to the states—otherwise known as bribes for giving in and surrendering.

The states lost that war without a shot being fired.

There is another way so-called “Progressives” look at illegitimate and unconstitutional federal power: it is the wonderful solution to problems the states refuse to solve for themselves.

If a state or states can’t see the wisdom of regulating an industry that pollutes, the federal government must step in and take control. When it does, the control is hailed as a victory.

But is it? The solution, in the long run, can be worse than the problem. As time passes, the federal government exerts more and more power over the states—any one of which could rightfully claim it has the size and money to rank as a country.

America, more and more, becomes a single entity, ruled from above, at a great distance, by a gigantic vampiric bureaucracy. This is exactly the kind of centralization the Republic’s Founders tried to avoid.

Conventional wisdom asserts that the states will do great harm to their citizens, because the states are locally inept, corrupt, ignorant, and cruel, whereas the federal government is kinder, gentler, more humane, and wise. The states are more likely to be run by greedy businessmen, while the federal government can maintain greater distance and rule with equanimity and fairness.

This is largely propaganda, and now, in 2017, it is difficult to run tests of the conventional wisdom, because the federal government has taken such major blocks of states’ former powers into its own hands.

But here is an example of such a test: the US Department of Education, a federal agency. It employs a mere 4400 people, and it has a staggering annual budget of $68 billion.

What in the world are those 4400 people doing with that much tax money and money printed out of thin air?

Here is the defining statement from the Department’s website:

ED’s 4,400 employees and $68 billion budget are dedicated to: “Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds [throwing giant sums of money at the states while binding the states to all sorts of rules and conditions and guidelines and bribes.].”

“Collecting data on America’s schools and disseminating research [surveillance, data mining, profiling, invasive pseudoscientific psychological screening].”

“Focusing national attention on key educational issues [propaganda, indoctrination, useless public relations, b.s.].”

“Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education [preempting the states’ ability to handle those issues themselves].”

The individual states could run and fund their own schools. Of course, they wouldn’t have the $68 billion each year to work with, but that would be their problem to solve.

The fact that it isn’t their problem now speaks to the federal policy of piling up insupportable budget debt to the sky and then pretending it doesn’t exist. “Here’s 68 billion dollars. No problem. We’ll print more when we need it.”

So the test would be: eliminate the US Department of Education.

Turn back the full responsibility for education to the states.

Perhaps then, the states would realize how insane their own governments are, because those governments, too, are running on the fumes of unpayable debt.

A rude awakening for all concerned, at every level? Most certainly. But the degree of overarching federal power would shrink a bit.

And in the long run, that is a good thing. An important thing.

And the next step would be individual communities within the states taking back control of their own schools. And many more parents homeschooling their own children.

The whole operation is called Decentralization.

And it starts at the top, where the biggest power grab of all occurred. Where the Constitution was stepped on, twisted, co-opted, ensnared, burned, scrapped, defamed, ignored, and ridiculed.

Think about this. How many schools in America, all of which receive gobs of federal money, actually teach the Constitution in a serious way, article by article, amendment by amendment, day by day, through all grades, with increasing depth and sophistication?

None.

As in: NONE.

Why should the schools teach the Constitution? After all, they’re sucking in money from a federal government that opposes the document and its essential separation of powers.

Coda: There are people who think what I’m proposing is beyond the pale. For example, what about the great civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s? It resulted in the passage of federal legislation that changed the landscape of America and canceled racism in many resistant states.

Yes, and it also resulted in Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, which was launched in 1966, and continues in one form or another to this day. Trillions of dollars have been poured into inner cities, and the conditions in those areas are far worse than in 1966.

How can that be? It can be, because along with the money came Dependence on the federal government. Lifelong dependence. Which was the actual motive behind the whole operation. It was no favor to the poor. It was a war on the poor. Honest programs aimed at developing self-sufficient businesses were cast aside and purposely rejected. Why? Because they could have worked. Because they would have lifted people up.

But instead, we now have equality. Equality of dependence. That was the federal ruse. That was the op.

What looks like federal intervention on behalf of the high moral ground turns into a long-term enduring disaster.

The solution to the problem turns out to be worse than the problem.

Why should we care about fake morality, devised to appear like a gift from the gods?

We should care about the self-sufficiency, power, imagination, and visions of many individuals. We should support the work that springs from those wells of deep energy.

The Constitution, in its own way, was an attempt to establish a platform from which those qualities could emerge.

It limited the force that could be applied from the highest controls of government.

Perverse criminals at every level rise and fall. But the Founding ideas and ideals remain. And so do the individuals who grasp them and live in freedom. (For more from the author of “When Is It Time to Revolt? The 50 States vs. The Gigantic Vampiric Bureaucracy Known as the Federal Government” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Disney Faces Backlash After Revealing ‘Beauty and the Beast’ Homosexual Scene

/0 Comments/in , , /by

People are beginning to take a stand against Disney after it was revealed the upcoming live action version of Beauty and the Beast will feature the company’s first-ever “exclusively gay moment.”

Director Bill Condon said in interview with Attitude magazine that Belle’s suitor, Gaston- has a male admirer in manservant LeFou, and that he will be used in the movie to highlight homosexuality.

However, some audiences aren’t happy with this.

Already, a movie theatre in Alabama has decided it will not be showing the latest version of the Disney classic.

“It is with great sorrow that I have to tell our customers that we will not be showing Beauty and the Beast at the Henagar Drive-In when it comes out. When companies continually force their views on us we need to take a stand. We all make choices and I am making mine,” the owner said in a statement on Facebook.

He added, “If we can not take our 11-year-old granddaughter and 8-year-old grandson to see a movie, we have no business watching it. If I can’t sit through a movie with God or Jesus sitting by me, then we have no business showing it.”

The owner says he only wants to show “wholesome movies” and will not compromise on what the Bible teaches.

Responses to the post ranged from hatred to support.

One person posted “Maybe you could take your 11- and 8-year-old grandchildren to see the movie and teach them that love is love so they don’t grow up hateful and miserable like you.”

Another wrote “I support your decision 100%. As usual, the left-wing anything-goes crowd is posting negativity. Please do not be swayed in your belief. I don’t think you’ll be out of business, I’m positive there are millions of people that share your values and will stand beside you to keep decency alive. Thank you. May you continue to be blessed.”

Others upset with Disney’s decision have decided to sign a boycott and let their frustrations be heard.

LifePetitions, a website used to serve pro-life and pro-family communities, started a petition in order to send a “strong message to Disney that children’s entertainment is no place to promote a harmful sexual political agenda.”

The petition already reached more than half of its 100,000 signature goal. (For more from the author of “Disney Faces Backlash After Revealing ‘Beauty and the Beast’ Homosexual Scene” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

For One Conservative, 2017 Looks Similar to 2009 Obamacare Debate

/0 Comments/in , /by

For at least one conservative lawmaker, the current process for repealing and replacing Obamacare is beginning to look very similar to that of 2009, when Republicans accused Democrats of writing the Affordable Care Act behind closed doors.

Armed with a portable copy machine, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., went on a crusade through the U.S. Capitol on Thursday to find the legislation that will ultimately repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

His goal was to see the elusive Obamacare bill himself, which was available in a reading room only to members of the House Energy and Commerce committees and their staff, and “demand a copy for the American people.”

“We’ve been talking about it for six years, so we thought we ought to see it,” Paul said of the replacement plan. “We heard it was in a secret room, and that it was under lock and key with guards. And sure enough, when we got there, there were policemen posted at the door, and we were not allowed to see the Obamacare repeal bill.”

Ultimately, the Kentucky senator was unsuccessful. But in his quest, he was joined by some unlikely allies: congressional Democrats like Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., who wanted to see a copy of the plan, too.

“This is not regular order, and it’s not good order for the American people,” Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland told reporters after broadcasting live on Facebook his search for the bill.

The House Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees are expected to take up the Obamacare replacement plan next week, and members of the Ways and Means Committee are planning to work through the weekend to continue hashing out the details.

But while GOP leaders say they haven’t yet finalized the bill, conservatives believe the legislation is being drafted in secret, out of view from them and the American people.

For the lawmakers, the process for crafting the bill repealing and replacing Obamacare harkens back to 2009, when Democrats wrote the health care law.

“If you’d recall, when Obamacare was passed in 2009 and 2010, Nancy Pelosi said you’ll know what’s in it after you pass it,” Paul told reporters Thursday, paraphrasing what Pelosi said at the time. “The Republican Party shouldn’t act in the same way.”

Paul and the House Freedom Caucus, a group of approximately 40 conservative lawmakers, are urging Republican leaders to repeal as much of Obamacare as possible and use legislation from 2015 that repealed the major provisions of the health care law as a starting point.

That bill passed the House and Senate, but President Barack Obama vetoed it.

But as Republicans on the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees continue to work on the bill, it’s unclear whether conservatives will get their way.

Even as Republicans head into the weekend, Paul continued to play hide-and-seek with the replacement bill and solicited his followers on Twitter for tips on where the plan may be hidden.

Conservatives and Democratic lawmakers were given an accidental early glimpse at what Obamacare’s replacement may look like after a draft bill was leaked to the press late last month.

The document, which was reportedly from early February, repealed much of Obamacare and phased out the Medicaid expansion, which would eventually be replaced with a per capita allotment. Under a per capita allotment, states get capped payments based on the number of people enrolled in Medicaid.

It also capped the tax exemption for employer-sponsored coverage, required Americans to maintain continuous coverage or face a 30 percent increase in premiums for a year, and put a new system of refundable, age-based tax credits for purchasing health insurance in place.

But six conservative lawmakers—three in the House and three in the Senate, Paul included—revolted against the draft replacement plan, calling it “Obamacare lite.”

Paul said the draft bill kept elements of the Affordable Care Act like an individual mandate and Cadillac tax on expensive employer-sponsored plans, and the members vowed to oppose any legislation that didn’t repeal the health care law in full.

“These are Democrat ideas dressed up in Republican clothing,” Paul said of the draft document.

After the conservatives vocalized their opposition, House Republican leaders stressed that the proposal released was one from the early stages of discussion.

“That draft is no longer valid,” House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., told reporters Tuesday.

The opposition from the House and Senate conservatives is the latest setback for GOP leaders, who planned to put the repeal-and-replace measure before lawmakers for a vote in the coming weeks.

Conservatives specifically disagree with the inclusion of the refundable tax credits available to consumers purchasing coverage in the individual market, which they believe creates a new entitlement program.

But the lawmakers aren’t opposed to the notion of a tax credit as a whole.

A replacement plan crafted by Paul calls for a $5,000 tax credit available to individuals who contribute money to a health savings account, or medical savings account.

Despite the opposition from House and Senate conservatives, GOP leaders don’t appear to be backing down from the draft document.

A newer version of the Obamacare repeal bill obtained by Politico contains many of the same provisions as the earlier document, including the refundable, age-based tax credits.

According to Politico, though, there is one change: Wealthier Americans would not be able to qualify for the financial assistance.

Republican leaders said this week’s negotiations are still ongoing and that the replacement plan hadn’t yet been finalized. They said that’s the reason a draft wasn’t yet available to Democrats and Paul.

“[Republican] members and staff are continuing to discuss and refine draft legislative language on issues under our committee’s jurisdiction,” House Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., said in a statement Thursday. (For more from the author of “For One Conservative, 2017 Looks Similar to 2009 Obamacare Debate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Feminists and Conservatives Link Arms to Confront Transgender Ideology

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Feb. 16, a rape survivor, a lesbian, a radical feminist, and a conservative activist gathered at The Heritage Foundation in support of a common cause.

As members of the Hands Across the Aisle Coalition, these unlikely allies have banded together to combat the increasingly anti-woman positions adopted by the transgender movement.

The event, which focused on the impact of laws and policies that privilege “gender identity” over biological sex, was hosted by Ryan T. Anderson, the Heritage Foundation’s William E. Simon senior research fellow.

Leading off the panel was Kaeley Triller Haver, whose past as a survivor of childhood sexual abuse drives her current work fighting to protect the safety and privacy of women and girls. She first encountered the push to allow men in women’s restrooms while on staff at her local YMCA.

As part of her job duties, she conducted regular sex offender screenings, and the results were disturbing, as she recounted:

Every single time that I would run one of these screenings, I would find somebody who’d infiltrated the system, because that’s what predators do—they prey, and they seek opportunity. And I recognized that this new policy that they were asking us to embrace and adopt was basically the equivalent of rolling out a welcome mat for any man who decided that he wanted to come in and access our spaces.

Haver recognized the transgender activists’ strategy of accusing those who oppose their agenda of being close-minded and unloving. Her abuser had used similar tactics to persuade her to compromise her personal boundaries, she said.

Emily Zinos, a mother of seven, was unable to attend the event, but her comments were read in her absence. Zinos faced this issue in one of her children’s schools. As part of the Ask Me First campaign, she advocates safety and privacy for all students.

She wrote:

What worries me most is that schools across the country are quashing debate, abandoning academic pursuits, and reducing themselves to pawns in a political movement whose claims are highly questionable, unscientific, and have been shown to harm children. Public schools have a duty to serve all children, but schools cannot serve children and a totalitarian ideology all at once.

Miriam Ben-Shalom, a longtime gay rights activist and the first lesbian U.S. service member to be reinstated after being discharged from the military under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” spoke next. She asked conservatives to differentiate between the gay and lesbian community and transgender activists, whose agenda is more about infringing women’s rights and safety than protecting those of transgender citizens.

She said:

It’s not about bathrooms. It is about bathrooms, locker rooms, women’s shelters, women’s jails, and women’s spaces, and the real issue here is male violence. That’s what it is, and that’s what we’re talking about here. If trans women were really women, they would understand that the issue is male violence and they would sit down with us and civilly work together to find an acceptable solution to this problem.

The question of public restrooms, locker rooms, and showers sparked an intense political battle last year across the nation, but particularly in North Carolina. (For more from the author of “Feminists and Conservatives Link Arms to Confront Transgender Ideology” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Soros Money Is Corrupting Politics in This Small European Nation

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the economy of world politics, George Soros has billions at stake, and they extend even to remote places like the Republic of Macedonia.

In fact, the tiny Balkan state is becoming emblematic of a battle royale taking place in Europe between conservative parties that support traditional values and national sovereignty, and those — often funded by the liberal billionaire — with an ambitious agenda that includes liberal drug and sexual orientation policies as well as trans-nationalism.

Making things even more complicated are the Kremlin’s routine strategic interferences. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s vast propaganda network often intrudes into these disputes, whether invited in or not, by ostensibly taking up the traditionalists’ cause and going to war with his arch-nemesis, Soros.

In some places, such as Macedonia itself, there is one added variable: Obama-era embeds.

The Obama-appointed U.S. ambassador in Skopje, Jess Baily, has come under congressional scrutiny over accusations that he has shown a political bias against the Macedonian conservative party, VMRO, and that he facilitated coalition negotiations between the main leftist party and ethnic Albanian parties.

In a letter sent to Baily on Jan. 17, Republican members of the House and the Senate also asked him to explain reports that his embassy had selected Soros’ Open Society Foundations as the main implementer of U.S. Agency for International Development projects in Macedonia.

The State Department’s Feb. 6 response, which I had the chance to read, was thin on details regarding funding for Soros’ foundation and groups it controls.

Grants to them were awarded through a “competitive procurement process,” the letter said. The aid, it added, was to “strengthen the rule of law, increase economic growth, support regional security,” and pursue other nebulous goals.

But in fact, a Feb. 27 USAID announcement of a $2.54 million contract with the foundation revealed that the project included paying for training in “civic activism,” “mobilization,” and “civic engagement.”

Far from strengthening the rule of law or regional security, these are activities associated with the redefinition of civics as 1960s-style progressive political activism. They are all strategies straight out of Saul Alinsky’s subversion manual, “Rules for Radicals,” whose translation into Macedonian, incidentally, was funded by Soros’ foundation in 2014.

One of the world’s richest men, Soros has a long history of intervening politically around the globe in the pursuit of his dream of open borders, global governance, and the erosion of regional particularism — what he calls the “open society.”

Because the State Department’s letter was “vague and failed to answer the questions we posed,” the same six Republican members of the House who wrote him — plus a new one, Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. — last week asked the comptroller general of the Government Accountability Office to open an investigation and audit of the State Department and USAID regarding Macedonia and Soros’ foundation.

The legal watchdog Judicial Watch, for its part, has filed Freedom of Information Act requests asking that the State Department and USAID produce documents related to any grants, contracts, communications, assessments, etc. made by the department to the Foundation Open Society-Macedonia and its subsidiaries.

Whatever comes from these efforts, the political parties that the U.S. ambassador was helping negotiate — the leftist Social Democratic Union and three ethnic Albanian-based parties, the Democratic Union for Integration, Besa, and the Alliance of Albanians — did on Sunday reach an agreement to form a government.

But Macedonia’s president, Gjorge Ivanov, on Wednesday refused to give the Social Democratic Union a mandate to form a government because its leader, Zoran Zaev, acquiesced to the Albanian parties’ demand that Albanian become an official language throughout Macedonia.

The parties worked out the language deal next door in Tirana, Albania — one of the reasons Ivanov cited for withholding the mandate.

Albania is another country where the activities of Soros and his foundation are also under scrutiny for supporting the government of Prime Minister Edi Rama — a socialist who personally brokered the “Tirana Platform.” And in Albania, too, we find an Obama-era ambassador, Donald Lu, who backs the Soros-supported parties.

Rama, who is so close to Soros he attended his 2013 wedding, last week issued an impassioned plea for the U.S. not to abandon the Balkans to Russia, whose influence, he told The Telegraph, “is stronger than ever before.” “Russia,” he added, “has been interested in spreading its influence and there’s a lot of it in the region.”

Putin’s Kremlin routinely and opportunistically tries to maneuver itself into the politics of Europe. Senior Whitehall sources say it plotted to assassinate Montenegro’s prime minister last year.

In Macedonia, too, it has tried to portray itself as being on the side of the conservative VMRO, which leads the present government and won the most votes in the Dec. 11 elections. Even an article I wrote last month was quoted at length by Russia’s Sputnik International.

Reuters reported that on Thursday, March 2, Russia accused Albania, NATO, and the European Union of trying to impose a pro-Albanian government on Macedonia.

Far from backing pro-Putin policies, however, VMRO has long been a staunchly pro-U.S., pro-NATO party.

But our embassies’ notorious support for Soros and his progressive policies does irritate traditional-minded people in Macedonia and elsewhere.

“Some of my conservative friends in Macedonia are now telling me, ‘I hate America,’” Jason Miko, an American businessman who has been visiting the Balkan country for over two decades, told me. “They don’t really hate America. They hate what the Obama administration has done.”

“If Soros wants to spend his own money, then let him, but when he starts using taxpayer money it’s something else,” said Miko, Macedonia’s honorary consul in Arizona. (For more from the author of “How Soros Money Is Corrupting Politics in This Small European Nation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

U.S. Airport Pat-Downs Are About to Get More Invasive

/0 Comments/in , /by

While few have noticed, U.S. airport security workers long had the option of using five different types of physical pat-downs at the screening line. Now those options have been eliminated and replaced with a single universal approach. This time, you will notice.

The new physical touching—for those selected to have a pat-down—will be be what the federal agency officially describes as a more “comprehensive” physical screening, according to a Transportation Security Administration spokesman.

Denver International Airport, for example, notified employees and flight crews on Thursday that the “more rigorous” searches “will be more thorough and may involve an officer making more intimate contact than before.”

“I would say people who in the past would have gotten a pat-down that wasn’t involved will notice that the [new] pat-down is more involved,” TSA spokesman Bruce Anderson said Friday. The shift from the previous, risk-based assessment on which pat-down procedure an officer should apply was phased in over the past two weeks after tests at smaller airports, he said. (Read more from “U.S. Airport Pat-Downs Are About to Get More Invasive” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Globalists Interviewed: They Admit They Control the Government

/0 Comments/in , /by

This is a bombshell. It’s a crucial piece of history that has been ignored by mass media.

I’ve published this interview before. Here I want to make new comments.

First of all, David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission was born in 1973, in part because the Globalist plan to ensure “free trade” (no tariffs paid by predatory mega-corporations) had run into a glitch.

That glitch was President Richard Nixon. He began laying tariffs on certain goods imported into the US, in order to level the playing field and protect American companies. Nixon, a substantial crook in other respects, went off-script in this case and actually started a movement to reject the Globalist vision.

After Nixon’s ouster from the White House, Gerald Ford became president, and he chose David’s brother, Nelson Rockefeller as his vice-president. It was a sign Globalism and free trade were back on track.

But David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Brzezinski, wanted more. They wanted a man in the White House whom they’d created from scratch.

That man was a peanut farmer no one had ever heard of: Jimmy Carter.

Through their media connections, David and Brzezinski vaulted Carter into the spotlight. He won the Democratic nomination (1976), spread a syrupy message of love and coming together after the Watergate debacle, and soon he was ensconced in the Oval Office.

Flash forward to 1978, the second year of Carter’s presidency. An interview took place.

It’s a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment. It’s a through-the-looking-glass secret—in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper.

The interview concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating and controlling US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations [!], and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

SOURCE: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn’t.

Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn’t become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.

Shortly after Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We have lost. And I will quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Flash forward again, to the Obama administration.

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Four years before birthing the Commission with his boss of bosses, David Rockefeller, Brzezinski wrote: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Goodbye, separate nations.

Any doubt on the question of Trialteral goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington and Technocracy Rising, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America.

Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

For example: Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;
James Jones, National Security Advisor;
Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;
Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.

Here is the payoff. The US Trade Representative (appointed by Obama in 2013), who was responsible for negotiating the Globalist TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) treaty with 11 other nations, was Michael Froman, a former member of the Trilateral Commission. Don’t let the word “former” fool you. Commission members resign when they take positions in the Executive Branch of government. And when they serve in vital positions, such as US Trade Representative, they aren’t there by accident. They’re operatives with a specific agenda.
Flash forward one more time. Trump, who squashed the Globalist TPP treaty as soon as he was inaugurated, has been busy making staff appointments. Patrick Wood writes (2/6/17):

“According to a White House press release, the first member of the Trilateral Commission has entered the Trump administration as the Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs, where he will sit on the National Security Council:

“Kenneth I. Juster will serve as Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs. He will coordinate the Administration’s international economic policy and integrate it with national security and foreign policy. He will also be the President’s representative and lead U.S. negotiator (“Sherpa”) for the annual G-7, G-20, and APEC Summits.”

Juster’s duties will take him into the heart of high-level negotiations with foreign governments on economic policy.

Keep your eye on Mr. Juster. Will he take actions in line with Trump’s avowed anti-Globalist stance?

Or will Juster work as one more covert Trilateral operative in the center of American decision-making?

If the answer is “covert operative,” does Trump know this? Does he condone what Mr. Juster will do?

Or is this a case of secret infiltration, on behalf the most powerful Globalist group in the world, the Trilateral Commission? (For more from the author of “Globalists Interviewed: They Admitted They Controlled the Government” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Megabank Caught Laundering for Terrorists and Drug Cartels and the Feds Are Fighting to Keep It Secret

/0 Comments/in , , /by

When a bank is found guilty of doing business in countries where they’re not supposed to be, and when the same bank is found guilty of helping drug cartels launder money, shouldn’t the public have a right to know about the bank’s efforts at correcting such actions? That’s the question being raised with respect to HSBC’s 1.92 billion dollar settlement with the U.S. and oral arguments are taking place in federal court this week on whether or not the compliance report should stay sealed.

The bank lost in court in 2012 when it was discovered they had business dealings in, “Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma, racking up violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading With the Enemy Act,” according to CNS. The bank’s executives, who knew full well what the bank was doing, were given deferred prosecution agreements, so long as the bank, going forward, would reform its business practices and comply with the law.

“HSBC admitted to violating U.S. sanctions laws and failing to stop Mexican and Colombian cartels from laundering hundreds of millions of dollars in drug proceeds through the bank,” but now is fighting to keep the contents of the compliance report a secret. And the bank is getting help from what should be considered the most unlikely of sources, the Department of Justice. Yes. That’s right. The same justice department which prosecuted HSBC and won, is now seeking to keep the progress, or lack thereof, in complying with the law, a secret.

One lone ranger, a mortgage holder with HSBC, is fighting to make the compliance report public. Hubert Dean Moore believes HSBC’s progress with complying with the law should be a matter of public record and is arguing his case this week in Manhattan, NY. The DOJ’s lawyer, Jenny Ellickson, argued for the government on Wednesday saying Gleeson shouldn’t’ be involved in the proceedings. She argued that releasing the report would make it harder for the federal government to enforce the deferred prosecution agreement adding that doing so would mean that HSBC would be less likely to cooperate going forward. “The importance of the monitor’s confidential sources is critical here,” she said according to the New York Post.

Yahoo News writes,

Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch, one of the judges on the panel, expressed skepticism of that argument, saying that sources were most likely to suffer retaliation from HSBC, which received the monitor’s reports anyway. Paul Clement, representing HSBC, said it would not be fair to the bank to have the report released, when the original agreement called for reports to be confidential. David Schulz, who represents Moore pro bono, said it was prosecutors, not Gleeson, who had overreached. When Lynch pressed him to explain what gave Gleeson the power to order the report’s release, Schulz cited his ‘inherent supervisory powers’ over the case.

For the moment the report will remain confidential, as judges continue to hear arguments both for and against releasing the compliance report’s findings. The federal government’s own lawyers are helping to keep it that way, and the bank is more than happy to keep their movements in complying or not complying with the settlement, a continued secret.

Discovering HSBC engaged in illegal business dealings is almost as shocking as the slap on the wrist settlement it was given. According to one estimate, the 1.92 billion dollar figure amounts to five days worth of business earnings by the bank. Even more surprising may be the fact that not one person has spent any time in jail or prison over dealing directly with drug cartels and rogue governments leading many to question what would happen to an individual caught doing the same things. Are banks who are “too big to fail” also too big to prosecute?

Moore’s attorney, David Schulz said, “The appellants in this case try to argue that this is judicial overreach into a realm that’s exclusively left to prosecutors, and the fact is, just the opposite is true…What is going on here is not judicial overreach. It’s prosecutorial, executive branch overreach.”

Schulz wrote in his legal brief to the court, “Disclosing the report serves the important interest of informing the public about any substantive reforms actually being made by HSBC, and is needed for meaningful analysis of the propriety of the government’s decision to enter into the DPA (Deferred Prosecution Agreement),” with HSBC.

In a nutshell, HSBC was found guilty of some pretty nasty business dealings. The good old boy Wall Street network and its cozy relationship with the federal government likely resulted in a drop in the bucket type of settlement with the government, and deferred prosecution (some might say immunity) was given to its executives. And now, precisely how HSBC has shaped up its dealings is being kept from the American people, by our own Justice Department. And we call this ‘justice’ in the land of the free. (For more from the author of “Megabank Caught Laundering for Terrorists and Drug Cartels and the Feds Are Fighting to Keep It Secret” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Man Who Doesn’t Know How to Swim Rescues Boy in Hotel Pool

/0 Comments/in , /by

Police say a Pennsylvania man who doesn’t know how to swim jumped in and rescued a boy from drowning in a pool at a New Jersey hotel.

Fairfield police say a Paterson woman and a male companion were in the pool at the La Quinta Inn on Thursday with her five children, who range in ages from one to nine. Police say none knew how to swim, and the 9-year-old went under water. (Read more from “Man Who Doesn’t Know How to Swim Rescues Boy in Hotel Pool” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.