What Conservatives Want to Know About the Left: What the Heck Do These People Want?

When I was a young man I worked as a waiter for a time. Certain customers would occasionally come into the restaurant who were a waiter’s worst nightmare.

These were people who had problems with everything from the moment they walked into the restaurant. Nothing pleased them — the table placement, the flatware, the waiter, the food, the wait for the food, the music being too loud or not loud enough or the wrong music. You name it — whatever it was, it was not what they wanted.

After I would take their meals back to the chef several times, he would finally erupt and throw whatever he happened to be holding in his hand at the time.

His booming voice would echo throughout the cavernous restaurant kitchen.

“What the hell do these people want?!!”

Many of us find ourselves asking the same question about the political left.

What the hell do these people want?

Do they even know what they want?

OK, we get it — they hate Trump and want him gone. Yes, we know. We have heard this so often we don’t even hear it anymore. It’s become like background music in an elevator.

But besides getting rid of Trump, what else do they want? Or is that it? Just get rid of Trump and all will be well.

That is apparently the case, but can a political party win an election on a platform of simply getting rid of an administration without explaining how that would improve the lives of the American people?

As things stand right now the lives of the American people are pretty good — much better than they were before Trump was elected.

What is the left offering in place of the what we have right now?

This is what we have right now:

A booming and growing economy, low taxes, low inflation, a strong dollar, a strong military, fewer governmental impediments to business success, a sense of nationalism and hope for the future, record low unemployment, highest employment levels ever for blacks and Hispanics, a greatly improved trade agreement with Mexico and the European Union, a substantial reduction of illegal immigration, a great improvement in relations with North Korea, Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a conservative majority on the Supreme Court with another appointment coming, American money returning to America, a boom in new industries, factories being built, 4 percent GDP, abolishment of gender-neutral restrooms, a restart of the American space program, great pride in America, a clean-up of the Deep State, withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement, withdrawal from NAFTA, record-high value in the stock market, rapidly improving 401K’s, greatly improved border protection, withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, a president who works incessantly, a president who does as he says.

The results from the left taking over would be:

Socialism, government-controlled health system, elimination of immigration enforcement, open borders, citizenship for illegal aliens, reversal of the tax cuts, impeachment of President Trump, destruction of the coal industry, reinstitution of business-killing regulations, high taxes, high, unemployment, depleted 401K’s, low wages, dropping stock market, a struggling economy, increasing numbers on welfare, depleted military, increased social spending, losing respect in the world, end of North Korean peace talks, growing power of China, return to the old NAFTA agreement, return to Kyoto Treaty, return to carbon taxes, cessation of factory building, decimated auto industry, reestablishment of the Washington swamp culture, return to “Speak loud but carry a feather duster” diplomacy, rebirth of ISIS, reentering Iran nuclear deal, attacking Israel, greatly increased business and personal bankruptcies, a flat GDP.

Looking at what we have and what we would get from the left, no sane, logical person would ever choose the left. Yet millions of American voters will do just that.

Are these people insane and illogical?

Some think they are.

Michael Savage wrote a book titled, “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.” This best-seller argued just that. He points out that liberals are intentionally trying to undermine the pillars of society that keep it stable and sane.

This includes marriage, established gender identification, the Ten Commandments, free speech, religion, parental authority, manners, respect, patriotism, and much more.

In 2012, The American Journal of Political Science did a study of the beliefs and actions of conservatives and liberals. They used Eysenck’s Psychoticism scale to measure each group’s tendencies toward psychoticism.

Under this scale, those suffering from psychoticism demonstrate the following traits: tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking authoritarianism, and impulsivity.

If you think about what the left does, says, and believes, it is easy to see why liberals ranked so high on the psychoticism scale and conservatives ranked so low.

If someone disagrees with leftists, rather than debating their differences of opinion, leftists’ first reaction is often violence — just look at antifa.

Liberals don’t hesitate to undertake policies that put society at risk — gender neural restrooms and encouraging teenagers to experiment with risky sexual practices.

Liberals engage in outrageous behavior to get attention — vagina hats and gay pride parades.

They seek to control all aspects of a person’s life — limits on the size of soda bottles to bans on plastic straws.

They do and say things that are highly inappropriate for the setting — turning John McCain’s and Aretha Franklin’s funerals into anti-Trump rallies.

Perhaps instead of asking, “What the hell do these people want?” we should be asking, “Who the hell are these people?” It would give us a much better answer.

The political left is a collection of people who will do things on impulse without considering the risks or the damage their behavior will cause to others.

Conservatives sometimes try to talk to those on the left, hoping to use logic, facts, and reasoning to persuade them to adopt a better way of thinking about something.

Those who have tried soon give up and declare it a lost cause.

Conservatives must realize they are, themselves, engaging in insane behavior by continuing to do the same thing to the same people and expecting a different result.

It is much better to leave the insanity to the left. (For more from the author of “What Conservatives Want to Know About the Left: What the Heck Do These People Want?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s How Much Miami’s New Restroom for the Homeless Cost – Complete With Needle Exchange

By The Blaze. Homeless advocates are praising Miami for the installation of the first public restroom in the downtown area – complete with a needle exchange. . .

The $300,000 project was spearheaded by the Downtown Development Authority, a “semi-autonomous tax-funded agency.” . . .

The restroom will be open 12 hours a day, and will have attendants during those hours hired from a Miami homeless shelter.

The city is gearing up to end an agreement to protect the homeless from law enforcement, and the bathroom is one way to manage the homeless population as they pursue the new policy.

The agreement came as a result from a lawsuit by the ACLU that accused police of acting unconstitutionally when arresting homeless people for “life-sustaining” activities like urinating in public or sleeping on a sidewalk. (Read more from “Here’s How Much Miami’s New Restroom for the Homeless Cost – Complete With Needle Exchange” HERE)

____________________________________________________

Seattle Homeless-Services Providers See Mixed Results, Some to Face Penalties

By The Seattle Times. eattle homeless-service providers are helping more homeless people off the streets this year than last, but 35 percent fell short of new performance targets in their contracts, according to data released on Friday.

City officials said Friday that Seattle would impose financial penalties for missing contracted goals intended to boost the number of people who found “permanent exits” from homelessness, ending months of speculation among service providers, some of which have previously asked city officials to reconsider how performance figures are calculated. . .

Earlier this year, the city announced $34 million in new contract awards, marking the first time homeless-services contracts were competitively rebid in a decade. In another important development, the city tied pay to performance and set an ambitious goal to double the number of people who would be moved out of homelessness and into permanent housing. All told, Seattle has planned to spend more than $86 million on more than a dozen departments to address the homelessness crisis this year. (Read more from “Seattle Homeless-Services Providers See Mixed Results, Some to Face Penalties” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Democrats Consider a Stunning New Strategy Against Kavanaugh – Even If He’s Confirmed

By The Blaze. Congressional Democrats issued a threat about what they would do if Republicans are able to get Brett Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court, and the midterms push the House of Representatives into the Democrat’s column.

Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell (Calif.) said that Democrats would investigate accusations of perjury against Brett Kavanaugh even if he was confirmed to the Supreme Court.

“If they ramrod this nomination through, and we win the majority, we can still investigate this on the House side, and certainly the question as to whether a Supreme Court justice committed perjury is something you could look at,” Swalwell threatened. . .

Swalwell had made headlines Thursday when he mocked Senator Susan Collins (R-Me.) over threats that were being made against her because of the Kavanaugh decision. He eventually deleted the offending tweet and apologized. . .

“You can’t ignore a crime victim’s claim that something happened,” [Sheldon] Whitehouse said on CNN, “refuse to investigate, throw her up into the stand without the least bit of support for her, without the least bit of effort to corroborate what she says and then walk away from that.” (Read more from “Democrats Consider a Stunning New Strategy Against Kavanaugh – Even If He’s Confirmed” HERE)

_____________________________________________

Grassley Grants Kavanaugh Accuser Another Extension

By Fox News. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley late Friday night granted another extension to Christine Blasey Ford to decide on whether she will testify to the committee.

The new deadline was unclear, but Ford had requested that a 10 p.m. ET Friday deadline be extended until Saturday.

Ford has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, citing an incident that she said occurred decades ago, when both were in high school.

Grassley issued his latest extension decision in a tweet addressed to Kavanaugh, adding that he hopes the judge can “understand” his reasoning behind the delay.

(Read more from “Grassley Grants Kavanaugh Accuser Another Extension” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alaska Man Pleads Guilty to Assaulting Woman and Gets a ‘Pass’

A man in Anchorage, Alaska, pleaded guilty to assaulting a woman who said he strangled her unconscious and sexually assaulted her.

The man then walked out of court with no prison sentence.

“But I would like the gentleman to be on notice that this is his one pass,” prosecutor Andrew Grannik said in court Wednesday, CNN affiliate KTVA reported. “It’s not really a pass, but given the conduct, one might consider that it is.”

Justin Schneider, 34, was accused of kidnapping and assaulting the woman on August 15, 2017, strangling her until she lost consciousness and then masturbating on her, court documents show. (Read more from “Alaska Man Pleads Guilty to Assaulting Woman and Gets a ‘Pass'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

White Male Dem Calls on House Females to Protest ‘White Men Senators’

Rep. John Garamendi, a California Democrat with white skin, went on a curious rant against his congressional white male colleagues, calling out the senators in charge of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination proceedings as — what, racism against Christine Blasey Ford? Misogyny? . . .

“Women for decades have faced this situation,” Garamendi said, Breitbart reported. “They have always when they come forward with an accusation of assault or rape. They become the victim in the hearing. And we have to put a stop to that. Women across this nation should be outraged at what these white men senators are doing to this woman. This woman needs a fair hearing, as every woman does who brings forth a charge such as professor Ford is bringing forth.”

Joy Behar, co-host of “The View,” made a similar charge against the senators on the Judiciary Committee, calling them out for being “white men, old by the way,” protecting a man, Kavanaugh, who’s “probably guilty,” she said.

But Garamendi is a white guy — taking political potshots at his fellow white guys. Odd argument to make, it would seem. Moreover, he’s calling on his female House mates — ostensibly, the white ones, too — to mount a sort of rebellion against these white senators. (So perhaps it is misogyny, not racism, that he’s alerting to here?) . . .

His words: “I would expect to see the women representatives in the House of Representatives rise up in anger and disgust at what the Senate Republican men are doing. Ramming through this hearing without an adequate opportunity for professor Ford to gather together the witnesses that she may need, that the public needs, that the Senate needs, and the investigation that can be done by the FBI. I would expect the female members of the House … joined in by members such as myself to march over to the Senate and to protest loudly and clearly on behalf not only of professor Ford, but on behalf of the women of America.” (Read more from “White Male Dem Calls on House Females to Protest ‘White Men Senators'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Army Misses Recruiting Goal for First Time in Over a Decade

The Army missed its recruiting goal this year for the first time in well over a decade, which officials blamed on increased competition in a strong private-sector economy and the fact that “nobody wants to talk” to recruiters on the phone or face to face these days.

For the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, Army leaders said they pulled in about 70,000 new recruits. The goal was 76,500.

It’s the first time the Army fell short of its target since 2005, and all of the other branches of the military hit their benchmarks this year.

“We obviously thought we would do better than that,” Maj. Gen. Joe Calloway, director of military personnel management for the Army, told the Associated Press, adding that in recent years the Army had pulled in at least 3,000 more recruits than expected.

“We obviously thought we would do better than that,” Maj. Gen. Joe Calloway, director of military personnel management for the Army, told the Associated Press, adding that in recent years the Army had pulled in at least 3,000 more recruits than expected. (Read more from “Army Misses Recruiting Goal for First Time in Over a Decade” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump ‘Very, Very Close’ to Moving on Mexico Deal, With or Without Canada

Canadian officials are running out of time to join the U.S. and Mexico in a trade deal to replace current North American Free Trade Agreement terms, according to an administration source this week.

In a Fox News interview Friday morning, White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett pointed to an Oct. 1 deadline in the ongoing negotiations.

“We’re still talking to Canada, and we’re getting very, very close to the deadline where we’re going to have to move ahead with Mexico all by themselves,” he said.

The Trump administration is fast-tracking the new terms to finalize an agreement before the end of Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto’s term.

Some lawmakers see Canada’s inclusion in a new deal as vital to the preservation of NAFTA framework.

Nieto’s administration has been willing to negotiate with the U.S. and Canada, but leftist president-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador would likely be less open to renegotiated terms.

Hassett placed the onus on Canadian officials he believes are refusing to negotiate in good faith.

“I’m a little surprised that the Canadians haven’t signed up yet,” he said. “They’ve got a really, really good deal that they should be participating in. … I worry that politics in Canada is trumping common sense, because there’s a good deal that was designed by Mexico and the U.S. to appeal to Canada, and they’re not signing up.”

Canadian officials have pointed to a key NAFTA provision affecting its dairy industry as a specific sticking point in the negotiations.

According to Hassett, the fact that Canada has not agreed to the terms has “everybody over here a little bit puzzled.”

Among the terms reached by Mexico and the U.S. so far are requirements that would impact the auto industry by requiring an increased amount — 75 percent — of a vehicle’s parts to be made in North America in order for NAFTA to categorize it as a duty-free product.

The renegotiated agreement would also require that at least 40 percent of all workers producing automotive parts earn the equivalent of $16 per hour or more.

Hassett’s comments this week echoed remarks U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin made last month on the issue of North American trade.

He said that the Trump administration prefers to have Canada as an active participant in the negotiations, but it would be willing to move forward with a bilateral agreement if necessary.

“I think our objective is to try to get Canada on board quickly,” Mnuchin said. “This is a great deal for American workers. If you remember one thing, this deal is about more trade for U.S. companies and goods and services, and that’s what we’re focused on.” (For more from the author of “Trump ‘Very, Very Close’ to Moving on Mexico Deal, With or Without Canada” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hero Cop ‘Ran Toward the Danger,’ Kills Gunman Who Opened Fire at Municipal Building

By The Blaze. A gunman allegedly scheduled for a domestic violence hearing next week opened fire at a western Pennsylvania magistrate’s office Thursday afternoon, police told KDKA-TV.

The man entered the lobby of the Masontown Municipal Building around 2 p.m., police told the station, and added that the shooting took place inside the office of Magisterial District Judge Daniel Shimshock.

But officers from Masontown and German Township entered the lobby and engaged the shooter, KDKA said, adding that the unnamed German Township officer fatally wounded the suspect.

“The German Township police officer ran toward the danger, not away,” District Attorney Richard Bower said in a separate story from the station. “He protected over 30 to 40 people from injury or death.”

Bower added to KDKA that “there were four heroes: [Sgt. R. Scott Miller, German Township Police Chief Dave Hromada, Officer Thomas Obarto], and the officer who engaged the actor and killed him.” (Read more from “Hero Cop ‘Ran Toward the Danger,’ Kills Gunman Who Opened Fire at Municipal Building” HERE)

__________________________________________

Police Shoot, Fatally Wound Fayette Co. Magistrate’s Office Shooting Suspect

By CBS Pittsburgh. Police were called to a shooting at a magistrate’s office in Fayette County Wednesday afternoon.

According to police, the shooting happened inside the office of Magisterial District Judge Daniel Shimshock on East Church Avenue in Masontown.

Five people were shot, including the shooter. One police officer was also among those wounded.

Dozens of people were inside the building at the time, but Shimshock and members of his staff were not injured.

According to police, a male entered the lobby of the Masontown Municipal Building around 2 p.m. and opened fire. (Read more from “Police Shoot, Fatally Wound Fayette Co. Magistrate’s Office Shooting Suspect” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

3rd Person in Room During ‘Kavanaugh Attack’ Comes Forward and Blows Story Apart

The left’s characterization of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is falling apart after another individual identified as being present during the alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh has come forward and rejected the accuser’s story.

In a letter sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California professor Christine Blasey Ford said there were four people besides herself at the party when she was allegedly assaulted by Kavanaugh.

One of those four people, Patrick J. Smyth, a high school classmate of Kavanaugh, provided the Senate Judiciary Committee with a letter rebutting Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh, according to CNS News.

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth said in his statement published by CNN.

Smyth went on to claim “no knowledge” of the party Ford described.

“I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

Smyth also commented on Kavanaugh’s character and his treatment of women.

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women,” Smyth said.

Smyth’s statement makes him the third person to deny Ford’s claims out of the four individuals Ford said were present at the party.

Kavanaugh was the first person to deny Ford’s claims.

“This is a completely false allegation,” Kavanaugh said in a statement on Monday.

“I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone,” Kavanaugh continued, “Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday.”

Kavanaugh also expressed a desire to talk with the Senate Judiciary Committee “in any way,” unlike Ford, who will only testify if she gets an FBI investigation, according to Fox News.

“I am willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the Committee deems appropriate to refute this allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity,” Kavanaugh said.

Ford also identified Kavanaugh’s friend and former classmate, Mark Judge, who denied the allegations as well.

“In fact, I have no memory of this alleged incident,” Judge said in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

Ford’s story seems to be in shambles with three out of four alleged witnesses have said the assault never happened. (For more from the author of “3rd Person in Room During ‘Kavanaugh Attack’ Comes Forward and Blows Story Apart” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s Why Lowering the Refugee Cap Won’t Make a Difference to Our Immigration Crisis

What if I told you that the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) is completing the criminal conspiracy of Central American families to traffic their own teenage kids into this country and unite them with other illegal alien family members? What if I told you many of them have gone on to become gang members and fuel the drug crisis in the country? Now, what if I told you that the Senate voted this week on a bill to fully fund this agency without addressing the policy problem?

Last week, in a document submitted to a court babysitting our border “security,” government lawyers reported that as many as 350 illegal alien minors had parents who either affirmatively declined to be reunited with them or left the country without giving the government notice, as reported by Breitbart. This means that rather than two separate categories crossing the border – family units and unaccompanied alien children (UACs), they are usually the same demographic. All things equal, illegals would like to exploit our border to bring everyone in, but they don’t hesitate to either send their kids here alone or come with them and then leave them here to be resettled with other illegal relatives.

Shockingly, in the budget bill before Congress this week, legislators inserted a provision demanding that the government come up with a strategy to reunite illegal alien families rather than come up with a strategy to end their fleecing of America and endangerment of their own families. As I’ve noted before, almost none of these families are eligible for asylum, and almost none of the unaccompanied alien children are eligible for refugee resettlement status because most of them are self-trafficked by their own families, are not in the country alone, and are actually reunited with other illegal relatives – all of whom should be deported. Yet Congress is fully funding the Office of Refugee Resettlement in this “minibus” bill, even though Trump has cut the number of refugees from abroad.

There is no need for a separate refugee program in this era

Earlier this week, there was a lot of anxiety in the open-borders lobby after the Trump administration announced, pursuant to the annual determination of refugee caps, that it would accept no more than 30,000 refugees this year, down from a 45,000 cap last year. While the number is lower than it has been in recent years, let’s not forget that the entire program is nothing but a handout to private contractors and makes no sense either from an American standpoint or from a humanitarian standpoint.

Most of the refugees are from countries that are very different than America, and the people would do better resettling closer to their homes. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that we could resettle 12 times as many people closer to home with the amount of money we spend to bring them here, line the pockets of the contractors, and create Democrat voters. Moreover, as Mark Krikorian observed, the U.N. only considered 5,634 refugee applicants to be “emergency” or “urgent” for all of 2017. Our cap should be no higher than that.

But there is a broader point to be made. Open-borders advocates want to double-dip with refugee policies because they fail to acknowledge that we have so many other categories of immigration that are similar to refugees. In fact, most of our immigration system is built on chain migration, not skills, whereby existing immigrants, many of whom initially came here through refugee or similar programs, then bring in family members.

There are also thousands of “Special Immigrant Visas” who are brought in from Iraq and Afghanistan every year, many of whom present security risks. They are refugees in all but name only, but aren’t counted against the annual cap set by the president. We also bring in victims of crime under U visas and give de facto refugee treatment to paroled Cubans and Haitians and adjustment of status for Nicaraguans. Then there are the 50,000 brought in under the diversity lottery every year.

The Central American “asylum” invasion is worse than refugee policy

Which brings us back to the bogus asylum invasion at our border. Why should we take in any refugees from what has become Europe’s problem when we have our own “refugee” program for Central Americans flooding our border? And in the case of bogus asylum, it’s worse than refugees, because we don’t bring them in via a controlled process; they come here chaotically and unilaterally. According to the U.N. Refugee Agency, individual asylum applications in the US rose by 27 percent in 2017, topping out at 331,700 new requests, which eclipses Germany’s 198,300. Those numbers are higher this year. More than 400,000 received work permits last year, which means they disappear into our population, even though almost none of them would qualify for asylum if placed before a judge immediately.

Hence, we already take in more refugees than anyone else.

As much as I disagree with the refugee program, I’d take a standard cap of 70,000 vetted refugees any day over the several hundred thousand young males from Central America and other family units coming here against our will and demanding asylum.

So why is Congress funding the ORR at record levels? Legislators are appropriating $1.9 billion (58 percent above the president’s request) with a 30,000-refugee cap, when in 2016 they appropriated $1.6 billion for 85,000. The answer is that instead of bringing in refugees through the traditional route, they are treating all the Central American teenagers like refugees. And those are not counted towards the annual cap. In addition, the minibus bill has a rider demanding that any member of Congress must be let into the detention facilities to interfere with the work of our border agents and intimidate them.

Appallingly, the Senate just voted this week for an $8.4 billion “opioid package” interfering in health care and prescriptions, when the entire problem is illicit drugs being brought in through the very asylum/UAC surge Congress now encourages rather than deters in this budget bill.

Judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of Texas, in a December 2013 order, charged that the Obama administration essentially “successfully complet[ed] the mission of the criminal conspiracy” of drug smugglers to smuggle people over the border on behalf of parents “at significant expense” to taxpayers. He observed that the DHS was taking actions that were “dangerous and unconscionable,” “subject to the whims of evil individuals,” resulting in the “absurd and illogical” outcome of helping “fund the illegal drug cartels which are a very real danger for both citizens of this country and Mexico.”

Hanen pointed out that “time and again, this court has been told by representatives of the government and the defense that cartels control the entire smuggling process.” He also observed that the cartels knew that teenagers would be treated leniently if caught with drugs. He therefore concluded that by dismantling immigration enforcement and promising amnesty, “the government is not only allowing them to fund the illegal and evil activities of these cartels, but is also inspiring them to do so.” In a footnote, Hanen ominously warned about the heroin smuggling that would likely follow, based on past history.

Yet a GOP Congress and administration are allowing all of this to continue unabated while claiming magnanimously to fight “the opioid crisis” and care about “uniting families.” Good night, Orwell. (For more from the author of “Here’s Why Lowering the Refugee Cap Won’t Make a Difference to Our Immigration Crisis” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.