So Who Do Democrats Most Want to Run in 2020? This Poll Reveals the Truth

By Daily Wire. So who is leading among the sizable list of potential candidates that Democrats hope to see take down Donald Trump in 2020? The results of a new Politico/Morning Consult poll isn’t quite as “woke” as you might think. In fact, none of the leading candidates are women, or minorities, and two out of the three meet the description of Democrats’ least favorite demographic: old white males (the third is a not-that-old white male).

The survey of 1,952 registered voters was conducted right after the “most important midterm elections in history” wrapped up, leaving us with a newly Democrat-controlled House but a still-Republican controlled Senate. Despite the changing scene in Washington, the poll offered some familiar results.

The Democratic frontrunner, according to Politico’s poll: old white guy Joe Biden, who managed to grab just over a quarter (26%) of the Democrats’ vote for who they’d most like to see facing off against Trump in two years. Biden has already twice-failed to win a presidential bid, back in 1988 and then 20 years later in 2008. As a consolation prize, he was handed the vice presidency by Barack Obama on his second try. After considering running in 2016, he ultimately opted out amid a family tragedy.

The runner-up is also not the freshest name on the list: Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who isn’t even really a Democrat, and who also failed to win a presidential bid, and against the widely unpopular Hillary Clinton, no less. Sanders managed to get about a fifth of the votes (19%). (Read more from “So Who Do Democrats Most Want to Run in 2020? This Poll Reveals the Truth” HERE)

_______________________________________________

Bloomberg charts aggressive timeline on 2020 bid

By AP. Having spent a fortune to help elect Democrats this fall, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared lifetime allegiance to the Democratic Party on Tuesday and outlined an aggressive timeline for deciding whether to run for president.

“I think January, February would be about as late as you can do it and as early as you can gather enough information,” Bloomberg told The Associated Press in an interview. (Read more from “Bloomberg charts aggressive timeline on 2020 bid” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Down Syndrome Community Asks to Be Put on ‘Endangered Species’ List

In Iceland, people with Down Syndrome have been virtually wiped out by abortion. In Denmark, people with Down syndrome also face extinction. In the United Kingdom, 90% of parents who discover that their pre-born child has Down syndrome opt to have the baby aborted. In the US, 75% of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. In Canada, it is also close to 90%.

All of this is despite the fact that the vast majority of people with Down syndrome report having an extremely high quality of life, exposing the empty and evil excuses of some abortive parents that abortion is “best for the baby” as the transparent lie that it is. Life expectancy has also gone up steadily: Now, people with Down syndrome generally live to about sixty years old, with some living into their seventies. Their life expectancy post-birth has skyrocketed just as their life expectancy pre-birth plummets.

That is precisely why the Canadian Down Syndrome Society (CDSS) is attempting to draw attention to the plight of people with Down syndrome via a daring new campaign, “Endangered syndrome”: They have launched a petition calling for those with Down syndrome to be placed on the “endangered” list, noting that that by the standards of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the Down syndrome community qualifies.

The dwindling Down syndrome community has resulted in dwindling funds for essential community services, the CDSS noted through a video highlighting people dressed as endangered animals while explaining their plight. Animal welfare groups, the CDSS observed, get 90% more funding than Down syndrome charities across North America, a fact that helped drive their controversial comparison—the video has already been viewed more than a million times. (Read more from “Down Syndrome Community Asks to Be Put on ‘Endangered Species’ List” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Students Appear Hesitant to Donate to Ocasio-Cortez’s Apartment Search – This Is What Changed Their Minds

Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made headlines last week when she said that she couldn’t afford an apartment in Washington D.C. until she starts getting paid. Many students at American University appeared ready to help her out — that is, until they found out what her salary will be during her time in Congress. . .

Many AU students stated their willingness to help the Democratic-socialist find an apartment, but some walked their support back when they found out just how much she’ll make as a congresswoman. The incoming lawmaker has also reportedly drawn $6,200 in salary from her campaign since August.

(Read more from “Students Appear Hesitant to Donate to Ocasio-Cortez’s Apartment Search – This Is What Changed Their Minds” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

DC Carry Permits Jump Over 1440 Percent Since District Went ‘Shall Issue’

The number of Washington D.C. concealed carry permit holders skyrocketed a little over 1440 percent since the District lost a key legal battle related to its previous restrictive gun permitting process at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia last year. . .

MPD noted that several hundred approvals came from applications submitted in late 2017. These were included in the current 2018 approval number, which is why the total number of 2018 applications for DC concealed carry permits to date is 1508 — a number lower than the 2018 approval number.

Prior the court ruling, according to The Washington Post, only 123 people had active D.C. concealed carry permits and MPD previously denied 77 percent of applicants for not providing the once-mandated “good reason” to carry. . .

By October of 2017, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine announced that the district would not appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, claiming that an unfavorable ruling from the high court would force other municipalities across the country to also do away with their restrictive gun permit processes.

Once known for its decades-long handgun ban, D.C. went from being “may issue” to “shall issue” when it came to issuing its concealed carry permits, so attaining the permit through the District’s mandate of in-class hours and on range requirements along with MPD’s extensive criminal background check became more of a reality for private citizens across the country. (Read more from “DC Carry Permits Jump Over 1440 Percent Since District Went ‘Shall Issue’” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Melania Goes Scorched Earth on White House Aide

By The Daily Caller. First lady Melania Trump’s office criticized deputy national security advisor Mira Ricardel in a rare blistering statement Tuesday afternoon.

“It is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she no longer deserves the honor of serving in this White House,” spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said. A statement from the office of the First Lady publicly calling for the firing of a West Wing aide is highly unusual. . .

The Wall Street Journal reported Ricardel clashed with the office of the first lady over her recent trip to Africa in which she was said to be unhelpful to Melania Trump’s staff. This included rebuffed requests for reserved seats on U.S. government aircraft and a general lack of helpfulness in using national security council resources. (Read more from “Melania Goes Scorched Earth on White House Aide” HERE)

___________________________________________________

First Lady Melania Trump Just Publicly Called for a National Security Council Official to Be Fired

By TIME. In an extraordinary move, Melania Trump is publicly calling for the dismissal of a top White House National Security Council official.

After reports circulated Tuesday that the president had decided to remove Mira Ricardel from the NSC, the first lady’s spokeswoman issued a statement saying: “It is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she no longer deserves the honor of serving in this White House.” . . .

Ricardel attended a White House ceremony Tuesday with President Donald Trump celebrating Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights. (Read more from “First Lady Melania Trump Just Publicly Called for a National Security Council Official to Be Fired” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: DNC CEO Is Asked How Democrats Will Pay for Health Care. She Has No Idea.

Seema Nanda, CEO of the Democratic National Committee, was asked on Tuesday how the Democrats intended to pay for a multi-trillion dollar government-run single-payer health care system. She had no idea.

Nanda made the remarks while being interviewed by Yahoo Finance at its “All Markets Summit: America’s Financial Future” in Washington, D.C.

“There has been some analysis of, third-party analysis of a Medicare for all program, what it would be like, how much it might cost is a big issue,” the interviewer said. “It would be very expensive, so, if this is going to be a winning issue for Democrats in 2020, how do you answer the question of how are you going to pay for this? Because there have been studies, credible studies that say it would cost $3 trillion dollars a year, you would have to double everybody’s taxes or maybe triple everybody’s taxes. How do you answer the cost question?”

“I don’t think we’re there yet,” Nanda immediately admitted.

(Read more from “Watch: DNC CEO Is Asked How Democrats Will Pay for Health Care. She Has No Idea.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Guy Gets Banned From Disney – Here’s the Ridiculous Reason Why (It Has to Do With Trump)

A man just got banned from Disney World for displaying a “Trump 2020” sign on the ride Splash Mountain during the photo drop and for displaying a “Keep America Great Again” sign on Expedition Everest.

“A man who displayed signs supporting Donald Trump is permanently not permitted at all Walt Disney World properties for violating the rules,” according to The Hollywood Reporter. . .

The man, Don Cini, had his annual pass taken away from him previously for a similar stunt. Disney, however, had a change of heart and granted him his pass back. They took it away once again for the same reason. Don Cini, however, maintains that he displayed the signs on the ride to “test them.”

“They never mentioned the fact that there was some kind of safety issue on the ride. That I was holding up a sign and I shouldn’t be doing that,” Cini told WFTV. “And I wanted to actually abide by their rules, and not hold up a flag to incite a crowd, but I kind of wanted to test them. I just really wanted to find out whether or not it had to do with unfurling a flag, or what was written on the flag.” . . .

While people might be quick to blast Disney for picking on a Trump supporter, a spokesman for the park said the ban comes from Cini “not following park rules.” To the park’s credit, it did not cave into SJW pressure when leftists demanded that President Trump not be included in the “Hall of Presidents” exhibit. In fact, the recently-elected president got his own animatronic and provided his own voice for the recorded speech. (Read more from “Guy Gets Banned From Disney – Here’s the Ridiculous Reason Why (It Has to Do With Trump)” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump v. Macron Defines the Clash of Nationalism Against European Progressivism

The fundamental philosophical differences between the leaders of the United States and France have spilled out into a full-blown public rhetorical spat. On Tuesday, President Trump fired back at French President Emmanuel Macron following the latter’s rhetorical shots directed at the America-first policies of the Trump White House.

In a tweetstorm this morning, the president unleashed a series of messages directed at Macron’s government:

Surely, the legacy media will denounce President Trump for his attack on the legitimacy of the elected President of France and his promotion of Macron’s nationalist rivals in Paris. However, it’s important to note that POTUS is merely counterpunching here, following the French president’s passive-aggressive attack this weekend.

Over the weekend, Macron delivered a speech at the Armistice Day anniversary (a ceremony recognizing the soldiers of World War I) in which he denounced the concept of nationalism. The denunciation was widely interpreted as a not-so-veiled shot at President Trump’s political philosophy.

“Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism,” Macron proclaimed, adding, “By saying, ‘Our interests first, who cares about the others,’ we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what gives it grace and what is essential: its moral values.”

The two world leaders have had a complicated relationship since President Trump took office. They have for quite some time maintained somewhat cordial personal relations, even though they remain at odds over major policy issues, such as the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris climate accords, tax and tariff policies, and their personal political philosophies. It appears their political differences have finally morphed into a fiercely personal clash.

Macron’s “globalist” political philosophy, which denounces nationalism as a force for evil, accurately represents the progressive movement in Western Europe, which seeks to continually centralize power in the bureaucratic behemoth that is the European Union. Macron has anti-nationalist allies in several progressive Western European nations. Today, one of Macron’s staunchest ideological allies, Germany’s Angela Merkel, called for an EU-backed joint army, which would wholly undermine the NATO alliance and the transatlantic alliance with the United States.

Macron’s campaign against nationalism comes in the heat of a legacy media and progressive political smear campaign against the tenets of nationalism. Many are weaponizing the term and smearing nationalism as a “white supremacist” philosophy akin to the Nazi regime’s ideology.

Simply put, nationalism is the preference for one’s country over another, while patriotism can be defined as having immense pride in one’s country. For conservatives, both nationalism and patriotism are healthy forces when focused in a state that advances and protects the individual rights of its citizens. Those two forces provide for a more stable world, in which sovereign states can treat each other with mutual respect and dignity. (For more from the author of “Trump v. Macron Defines the Clash of Nationalism Against European Progressivism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congress Set to Push Early Release for Gun Felons and Heroin Traffickers

What happens when the evil party and the stupid party get together to pass legislation? We get something evil and stupid.

The most important electoral project for President Trump over the next two years is to win back suburban voters who don’t support the Soros agenda but have been turned off by some of Trump’s demeanor. There is no issue that is more important to suburban women voters than the safety and security of their neighborhoods. Specifically, in recent years, many suburban neighborhoods have experienced an increase in crime as a result of weak criminal justice policies, in addition to a polydrug crisis ravaging our youth.

Being tough on drug traffickers, gun felons, sanctuary cities, illegal immigration, and crime in general is not only the right thing to do, but also the perfect wedge issue to expose the radicalism of Soros Democrats in these critical districts Republicans will need to win back in 2020. Such an agenda will expose these “moderate” Democrats for the phonies they really are on the issues that their constituents care about. Instead, the stupid party is making it top priority in the lame-duck session to use its last remaining month of full control to pass the Soros agenda on crime, thereby not only giving Democrats a pass, but becoming the party of weak on crime.

This legislation will retroactively release drug traffickers and gun felons from federal prison. Moreover, many of these people are foreign nationals who shouldn’t be in the country in the first place. In all my time in politics, I’ve never seen a more self-destroying policy move at the worst time, directed at the most important demographic.

As of now, the plan is to combine the House-passed “First Step Act,” which provides numerous back-end early release credits for federal prisoners, together with most of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s front-end sentencing reductions in one “compromise” piece of legislation.

Here are just a few of the concerns:

When the back-end early release programs from the House bill and the front-end sentencing reductions of the Senate bill are combined, hard-core drug traffickers, responsible for the lion’s share of the 72,000 drug deaths in 2017, who are sentenced to 20 years would be released after 7 years and 10 months. They call this prison reform, but it’s a prison release bill. Remember when they promised us they wouldn’t add on the sentencing bill? Well, they lied.

Prisoners need not do anything more than they are already doing to be eligible for the early release credits. The bill is written like a talking point and refers to programs that already exist. The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has a very thorough overview of how the standards for these programs are completely vacuous.

A number of the worst gun felons and drug traffickers will be eligible for early release into home confinement. This includes illegal aliens who compose a large share of the federal prison population, particularly among those serving time for drug trafficking. As we’ve noted before, the drug problem is almost all an external immigration problem at the primary trafficking level. If you want fewer people in federal prison for drug charges, and most importantly fewer drugs on the streets, we need to first solve the immigration and sanctuary problem.

4,000 hardened federal prisoners would be immediately released upon passage of this bill.
For all the talk of bipartisan concerns of over-criminalization of “small” white-collar crimes, this bill does nothing to clean up the federal code, which is true criminal justice reform. Instead, it is just an early release bill as part of a broader trend with more odious provisions in the future.

The bill expands the “safety valve,” which circumvents the mandatory sentencing and is already in widespread use, to those with significant criminal histories. Even under current policy, only 12 percent of drug traffickers wind up serving their full mandatory sentences. So much for “low-level, nonviolent” offenders.

Section 401 of the bill mandates that the Bureau of Prisons place prisoners within 500 miles of their homes. This provision is unworkable and would effectively force prisons to house local gang members together, keeping their criminal ties to each other active.

Remember, only 10 percent of the national prison population is in federal prison. These are the worst of the worst and are often people whom the federal prosecutors pursue on gun and drug charges but who have committed even worse crimes yet escaped justice in the state systems. This is why, according to the United States Sentencing Commission, 72.8 percent of federal offenders sentenced in 2016 had already been convicted of a prior offenses, with an average of six convictions each.

This bill and its broader movement seek more expensive programs while simultaneously touting a talking point of cutting costs – the worst of all worlds. For example, the bill dramatically shifts convicts from prisons to halfway houses, home confinement, and vaguely defined “community supervision.” According to the Bureau of Prisons, these arrangements cost two to three times as much per diem as fixed institutions.
By not appropriating the money in order to brag about cutting costs, this bill will endanger public safety. Moreover, the prison wardens union is concerned that because this bill promises endless new entitlements in prison but doesn’t deliver the funding, it will endanger the security of the wardens by exposing them to more vulnerable logistical situations.

Facts and details about the trends in prison population and crime rates, the nature of federal prisoners, the role of illegal immigration in the drug crisis, the current weak policies on safety valves, and the details of what the bill actually does and doesn’t do matter. The direction of the broader movement pushing this and where it is coming from and where it is headed matters. Chanting mindless slogans about ill-defined “criminal justice reform” like the sheep in “Animal Farm” doesn’t alter these facts.

The opposite of what Trump promised

President Trump promised just the opposite. He promised tougher sentencing and less jailbreak and even floated the idea of the death penalty for top traffickers. Why don’t we fulfill that promise first before pushing other leniencies? Also, with Democrats stealing elections with non-citizens voting, how about addressing that in the lame-duck session before addressing the greatest priority of George Soros? Why is this the sacred agenda?

In a telephone briefing on October 23, Kellyanne Conway told reporters that “nobody here is talking about exempting high-level drug traffickers.” In fact, she said the president is asking the DOJ to come up with tougher policies on high-level drug traffickers because there are “high-level drug traffickers getting little to no punishment because they know just how to stay under the minimum weeks.”

Yet, this bill does the opposite and makes no meaningful exceptions to the leniencies.

The only thing dumber than House Republicans responding to the electoral loss by picking Kevin McCarthy as their minority leader is to pass this piece of jailbreak after losing suburban voters. Unlike the laughably biased polling of the Left, the Foundation for Safeguarding Justice asked respondents in a comprehensive survey whether they would support or oppose a proposal to reduce federal government penalties for traffickers in heroin, fentanyl, and similar drugs – a straightforward description of the bill. Even 70 percent of Democrats opposed it, and opposition was highest among middle-class families with children. It is especially dumb given that there are over 100 better pieces of legislation that passed the House that could be taken up in the lame duck of the Senate.

If the president was actually committed to his plan to get tough on crime, he would demand the following compromise:

Any leniency would only apply to future convicts. No retroactivity.

Stiffen fines for drug traffickers above a certain threshold.

Pass the Hatch-Cotton bill to fix the SCOTUS decision that allows a number of violent criminals to escape mandatory sentencing, including criminal aliens.

Focus first on busting up sanctuary cities and deterring illegal immigration, which is the primary source of drug trafficking killing our cities and also incarcerating people.

Deport as many criminal aliens sitting in federal prison as possible. Let’s start saving money by not incarcerating other countries’ criminals.

Focus on the true impetus for criminal justice reform that luminaries such as Ed Meese signed on to a decade ago; namely, over-criminalization of nonsense crimes. Pass Hatch’s mens rea reform bill on criminal intent and clean up Title 18 of the criminal code for duplicative and random provisions. Don’t let out the worst federal street thugs. As Meese warned when the Senate bill was introduced, “No one should be fooled into believing that at the federal level, prosecutors have charged and judges have sentenced thousands of defendants to years in prison for committing ‘minor’ drug offenses.” Scandalously, phony conservative proponents of jailbreak wrongly tout Meese’s support for cleaning up regulatory crimes as justification for jailbreak.

Rather than pressuring conservatives to “get to yes” on jailbreak, the Swamp should get to yes on being tougher on crime. Trump never campaigned on jailbreak; he campaigned on law and order. To use the waning days of Republican control of the trifecta of government to do the opposite would be one of the most Orwellian moments in political history. (For more from the author of “Congress Set to Push Early Release for Gun Felons and Heroin Traffickers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Record Border Crossings in October. What Is the Administration Doing?

Just when we thought the border invasion couldn’t get any worse, we set a new record in October for border crossings of family units. In September, a total of 16,658 family units were caught entering between the points of entry, an all-time record. New data from Customs and Border Patrol show that this number increased 39 percent to 23,121 in October. Given that the numbers have increased among those coming here with children, this should put to rest once and for all any myth that migration is due to “push” factors in Central America rather than judicial and executive amnesty “pull” factors in America.

Overall, in October, 50,957 individuals were apprehended at the southern border between points of entry, while another 9,770 were apprehended at the points of entry. The 60,745 total is the highest single-month total of Trump’s presidency. I believe this is only the fourth time since the Great Recession that the monthly apprehensions topped 60,000. While the number of unaccompanied teenagers has remained relatively steady after the initial rise last year, the number of family units apprehended skyrocketed by almost 2,000 percent since the rock-bottom numbers of the Trump effect in the spring of 2017. That is all because of the catch-and-release policies of the Left and the courts, yet Republicans did not make this the top issue of the campaign.

One trend that is particularly disturbing is the 600 percent increase in apprehensions in the El Paso sector, which, until now, has been dormant. While the Rio Grande sector remains the busiest corridor, and while other sectors, such as San Diego, Tucson, and Yuma, have seen large increases in apprehensions, El Paso is the hottest trafficking spot in recent months. This is very concerning because Middle Eastern immigrants have been known to cross this part of the border, and the influx of bogus asylum-seekers that is now occupying the Border Patrol in the region will strategically distract them from interdicting some of the more problematic migrants.

One other interesting trend from the CBP data is that the lion’s share of both unaccompanied teenagers and family units are from Guatemala and, to a lesser extent, from Honduras. Family or UAC migration from El Salvador has dropped sharply, as has migration from Mexico. This is a complete refutation of those who say the migrants are fleeing violence, because Guatemala is, by far, the least violent of these countries, and homicide rates are plummeting, while El Salvador is the most violent country in Central America. Also, violence in Mexico is increasing every year, yet migration is down. Hence, there’s an inverse relationship between migration and violence.

So, what is the Trump administration doing about our uncontrolled border?

Last week, the administration took my advice and invoked the president’s broad powers to shut down all forms of immigration, including refugees and asylum, under 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The problem is that while the president invoked the statute that would justify a broad shutdown, he used it to implement a relatively narrow policy that doesn’t shut down our border. Rather than shutting down all border migration and requiring any asylum seeker to apply in our consulates in Mexico, which is designated as a safe third-party country by the U.N., the Trump administration is explicitly inviting all of them to apply at our points of entry. As we’ve clearly seen from the past two years, whenever you invite in illegal immigrants, they will come in droves.

To be fair, there is a clear benefit to at least shutting down asylum to those who come in between the points of entry. As noted above, having hordes of bogus asylum seekers come in through the smuggling routes empowers the drug and human smuggling cartels, is more likely to bring in dangerous people, and drains the resources of the Border Patrol.

However, Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, expressed her concern to me that this order would not dissuade cross-border migration even between the points of entry, much less at the points of entry:

This new rule is a pretty lukewarm response to the festering problem of hundreds of faux asylum seekers crashing the border daily, which will turn into a real crisis when the caravan of thousands arrives. Granted, it could make it a little harder for illegal entrants who might be covered under a potential proclamation barring them from entry, but even these entrants still will have asylum-like loopholes to exploit, including the form of relief known as withholding of removal, which is like asylum, but with a somewhat higher standard to pass the initial screening.

In other words, the entire point of using 212(f) should be to shut down all border migration and refuse to process anyone until the crisis subsides. Vaughan does not see the administration doing that. And given that detention facilities are already at record capacity, if we continue processing them rather than blocking their entry by force altogether, they will just be released.

Moreover, the points of entry are a huge loophole. Let’s not forget that the caravans always come to the points of entry anyway, and an increasing number of the more low-key migrants are surrendering themselves at the points of entry as well. Vaughan tells me:

The new rule is another giant invitation on a silver platter for arriving migrants to ask for asylum at the legal ports of entry, where they will be processed and released in somewhat slower motion, under the same standards that have been in place all along, which result in 90 percent of those asking for asylum being allowed to enter – despite the fact that only about 10 percent ultimately will be given asylum by a judge.

The problem is that the administration seems to be following the philosophy of DHS Secretary Nielsen – that somehow illegals have a right to enter, although they should do so in a controlled fashion. Again, there is merit to trying to demagnetize the border between the points of entry, but why have any illegal immigration once we know none of them are legitimate asylum seekers? “The biggest problem with the rule is that it is a surrender to the open-borders doctrine that the United States is somehow obligated to allow entry to almost anyone who shows up on our doorstep, legally or otherwise, who says they fear return, even if the claim is likely to be bogus,” said Vaughan.

Either we are a sovereign nation or not. And if the administration plans to go broad with its legal justification, it should go broad with the actual policy.

With illegal immigration skyrocketing, legal immigration continuing to soar, and the courts continuing to shut down our interior (and border) enforcement with no pushback from the other branches, one has to wonder if we lost an election all for nothing. (For more from the author of “Record Border Crossings in October. What Is the Administration Doing?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.