Hush Money: Witness Reveals How Much El Chapo Allegedly Paid Mexican President

On Tuesday, Columbian drug lord Alex Cifuentes Villa testified in the Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán Loera trial. During his testimony, Villa said El Chapo paid former Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto $100 million in bribes, The New York Times reported.

According to Villa, Nieto reached out to El Chapo first and asked for $250 million to call the manhunt off for the wanted drug lord. El Chapo counter offered $100 million and Nieto accepted. . .

There have been other allegations of other government officials receiving bribes from El Chapo but the news of Nieto, if true, would be the most shocking. It would mean the drug cartels truly do have a hold on Mexican officials.

After testifying about the two presidents, Mr. Cifuentes rattled off other bribes that Mr. Guzmán and his allies had paid to Mexican officials. On at least two occasions, he said, the kingpin gave the Mexican military between $10 million and $12 million to launch operations to “either kill or capture” associates of the Beltrán-Leyva brothers during his war with them.

Mr. Cifuentes also said the Mexican federal police not only turned a blind eye to drug trafficking, but occasionally took part in it. Once, he told jurors, traffickers gave the police photographs of several suitcases packed with cocaine that were sent by the cartel on an airplane from Argentina to Mexico. The police picked up the suitcases from the baggage claim, Mr. Cifuentes said, and sold the drugs themselves.

(Read more from “Hush Money: Witness Reveals How Much El Chapo Allegedly Paid Mexican President” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

New Poll Shows Most Americans Support Abortion Bans After the First Trimester

A Marist poll released this morning shows that Americans’ attitudes on abortion are nowhere near as extreme as radical pro-choicers make them out to be. This is obviously good news for political discourse and the sanctity of human life, although likely vexing for members of the #ShoutYourAbortion groups that are hellbent on releasing cutesy coffee table books on the matter. . .

For the last 11 years, the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which is supported by the Knights of Columbus, has tracked public opinion on abortion attitudes. This year’s results look at a sample size of 1,066 American adults, and found that roughly 55 percent of adults identify themselves as pro-choice, while 38 percent claim to be pro-life (7 percent say they’re unsure).

But just because most Americans seem broadly convinced on the abortion question doesn’t mean they support abortion-on-demand or abortion at all times, in all circumstances. In fact, many seem uneasy with certain practices: only 15 percent of all adults believe abortion should be available to a woman at any point during pregnancy.

About 27 percent believe abortion should only be available “during the first three months of pregnancy,” with 28 percent of adults supporting abortion “only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother,” 10 percent of Americans supporting abortion only when it saves the life of the mother, and 10 percent saying it should be permitted under no circumstances whatsoever. When those numbers are taken together, about 75 percent of respondents believe in some form of significant abortion restriction.

Interestingly, when looking at more specific circumstances, people’s opinions of what’s morally permissible are much more restrictive than most pro-choice activists would have you think. About 62 percent of all adults surveyed oppose aborting a child with Down syndrome. Roughly 54 percent of people either oppose or strongly oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (with 75 percent opposing using tax dollars to pay for abortions in other countries). (Read more from “New Poll Shows Most Americans Support Abortion Bans After the First Trimester” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Why Shouldn’t President Trump Reconsider NATO?

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

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

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

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

NATO may have outlived its purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The president has successfully leveraged NATO allies to do more

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

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

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

POTUS has long been a skeptic of the NATO alliance.

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

NATO may rope us into unnecessary conflict

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

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

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

What does the Constitution say?

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

The bottom line

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

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

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Donald Trump Jr. Posts Moving Footage of ‘Angel Mom’ to Social Media, Asks Nancy Pelosi Vital Question

Donald Trump Jr. has been sounding the alarm on voices that have largely been silenced by the mainstream media and ignored by top Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): so-called “Angel Parents” — mothers, fathers and family members of those killed at the hands of illegal immigrants.

The oldest Trump son took to social media on Sunday to post a powerful clip of Angel Mother Mary Ann Mendoza, whose son was tragically killed by a drunk-driving illegal immigrant.

Appearing on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Mendoza was asked by host Sean Hannity if she was pleased with President Donald Trump “holding the line” during the partial government shutdown over wall funding for the southern border. . .

“I would love the opportunity to stand with Nancy Pelosi mother-to-mother and look her in the eye and say, ‘Which child of yours, or grandchild of yours would you give up to support this agenda?'” she said, adding, “It’s like a slap in our face and a kick to our loved one’s grave every time she does this.”

“And I want the public to know, and I want Nancy Pelosi to know: I called her office again today and requested another meeting next week when I’m in D.C. and it was dead silence from her staffer. I said, ‘This is Angel mother Mary Ann Mendoza. I’d like to request a meeting face-to-face, mother-to-mother with Nancy Pelosi about this situation.’ Dead silence, and the staffer said, ‘No. I’ll put you through and you could leave a voicemail.'”

(Read more from “Donald Trump Jr. Posts Moving Footage of ‘Angel Mom’ to Social Media, Asks Nancy Pelosi Vital Question” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The U.S. Should Always Be Ready to Deploy Military Strikes Against Iran

The focus on the partial government shutdown has left little room for other news. But Washington elites still managed to find another reason to complain about the Trump administration over the weekend––they were shocked by the report that National Security Advisor John Bolton requested the Pentagon to provide the National Security Council (NSC) with military options to strike Iran last year.

Bolton made the request after Iranian-supported militias in Iraq fired rockets against the U.S. consulate in Basra and at Baghdad’s green zone, where the U.S. embassy is located, on September 6, 2018. Although fortunately no one was injured, the United States still regarded the militias’ actions as “life-threatening attacks” against the United States.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders made it known that “the United States will hold the regime in Tehran accountable for any attack that results in injury to our personnel or damage to United States government facilities.” She further promised that “America will respond swiftly and decisively in defense of American lives.”

As national security advisor, Bolton’s request to the Pentagon for military options to strike Iran is reasonable. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Pentagon developed some military options upon Bolton’s request. However, unnamed sources (of course) told the Journal that the request raised alarm within the Defense and State Departments, saying “People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran.”

In the end, other than public statements, the United States didn’t really do anything to Iran as a response. But over the past weekend, Washington elites were still shocked that Bolton even made such a request in the first place. Apparently there are many weak knees in Washington. (Read more from “The U.S. Should Always Be Ready to Deploy Military Strikes Against Iran” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

DOJ Is Considering Making a Drastic Change to Their Subpoena Policy Relating to Media Leaks

The Department of Justice is considering changing a long-standing rule that required the department to provide media outlets with advance notice of a subpoena relating to media leaks. As it currently stands, the DOJ is required to provide advance notice to third parties who make be involved in an investigation relating to a leak to the media, The Daily Caller reported. The reason for the change is simple: it takes too long to thoroughly conduct investigations into the leaks, especially when national security is at risk.

This is what the current statute, which was put in place in the 1970s, says:

When the Attorney General has authorized the use of a subpoena, court order issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2703(d) or 3123, or warrant to obtain from a third party communications records or business records of a member of the news media, the affected member of the news media shall be given reasonable and timely notice of the Attorney General’s determination before the use of the subpoena, court order, or warrant, unless the Attorney General determines that, for compelling reasons, such notice would pose a clear and substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation, risk grave harm to national security, or present an imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm.

(Read more from “DOJ Is Considering Making a Drastic Change to Their Subpoena Policy Relating to Media Leaks” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WATCH: Conservative Activist Jumps Pelosi’s Fence With Illegal Aliens to Prove THIS Vital Point

By Townhall. Conservative activist Laura Loomer, who is known for going undercover with James O’Keefe, took alleged illegal aliens from Mexico and Guatemala to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home in California. There, the group jumped the fence and Loomer demanded the group be let into the home. The group set up a pop up tent with the word “morality” on it and hung the pictures of those who were killed by illegal aliens, The Daily Caller reported.

During the middle of the stunt, Loomer called into the Alex Jones Show on InfoWars, at which point he applauded her efforts and included her live streamed video on his show.

(Read more from “WATCH: Conservative Activist Jumps Pelosi’s Fence With Illegal Aliens to Prove THIS Vital Point” HERE)
_______________________________________________

WATCH: Laura Loomer Brings Illegal Aliens to Nancy Pelosi’s Home. Pelosi Has Police Remove Them.

By Daily Wire. Self-described investigative journalist Laura Loomer brought a handful of illegal immigrants to the home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Monday.

Pelosi — who has been unwavering in her opposition to funding a wall along the southern border, which she’s classified as an “immorality” — reportedly had Loomer and the illegals removed from her property.

Loomer, accompanied by illegal immigrants from Guatemala and Mexico, lugged a tent onto Pelosi’s multimillion-dollar vineyard estate, freelance journalist Nick Monroe reported Monday. In large red letters, the word “immorality” was written across the tent; there were also photos of murder victims of illegal immigrants hanging from the front of the tent. . .

. . .

Earlier this month, Pelosi notably called Trump’s proposed southern wall an “immorality.”

“The fact is, a wall is an immorality. It’s not who we are as a nation,” Pelosi told reporters. “We are not doing a wall. Does anybody have any doubt? We are not doing a wall,” she added.

(Read more from “WATCH: Laura Loomer Brings Illegal Aliens to Nancy Pelosi’s Home. Pelosi Has Police Remove Them.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

VIDEO: Reporter Attacked on Air While Livestreaming

In a harrowing moment captured on live video, a female reporter was attacked on air while livestreaming from the scene of what authorities say was a “mass overdose incident” on Saturday.

KRCR News Channel 7 of Chico, California was on the scene covering developments in an alleged mass fentanyl overdose that resulted in what authorities say were a dozen people ages 19 to 30 being rushed to the hospital Saturday. . .

In an alarming incident livestreamed on Facebook, KRCR’s Meaghan Mackey was reporting outside the home where the mass overdose took place, when things quickly got out of hand — as the video posted by CBS Sacramento shows.

In the video, someone can be heard saying, “This is disrespectful, do you understand that?” Suddenly, the news camera appears to be hit, then drops to the ground, while a female — presumably Mackey — begins to scream. “Get the [inaudible] out of here!” someone yells.

(Read more from “VIDEO: Reporter Attacked on Air While Livestreaming” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

NAIL IN THE COFFIN: Trump Finishes Off Acosta After Brutal Day

President Donald Trump humiliated CNN’s Jim Acosta on Thursday after the professional troll accidentally admitted that border walls work during the president’s visit to McAllen, Texas.

Acosta posted multiple videos to his Twitter account showing how safe the border was in an area where there were large steel slats separating the border. . .

The term “Dear Diary” is used to mock Acosta on social media because his posts often sound like he is writing his personal feelings in a diary.

(Read more from “NAIL IN THE COFFIN: Trump Finishes Off Acosta After Brutal Day” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

6 Things the Media Doesn’t Want You to Know About the Border Crisis

Let’s talk about the media and the border crisis. Media advocacy on behalf of bogus asylum has succeeded. It has spawned the most precipitous increase in family units ever crossing our border and has empowered the dangerous drug cartels beyond belief. Now, the media strategy is “see no evil, hear no evil.” They are seeking to deny that there even is any problem at our border.

One of the most common canards from these blowhards who refuse to educate themselves about this issue is that the border flow is not truly exceptional. They point to the fact that there were years in the 1990s and early 2000s when we experienced almost 1.5 million annual apprehensions. This myopic approach exposes how they are completely disregarding the nature of this particular migration and the dangers it poses.

Here are six interconnected points that explain why the problem is so imminent now more than ever before.

1) Trajectory

When assessing any sense of urgency in policy, a firm grasp of the trajectory is very important. While it’s true that there were years a long time ago when we experienced more border crossings, it’s the trajectory of this current surge that is concerning.

When Trump was elected, border crossings immediately slowed to a trickle. Border sheriffs with decades of experience tell me they never saw anything like it. The mere perception of deterrent dried up the flow because perception of amnesty is what drives the migration. But then the courts went into high gear and even Trump started talking about a “dream” amnesty later in 2017. That ratcheted up the flow again.

Then, in the summer of 2018, the media and the courts virtue-signaled on behalf of criminal aliens self-separating themselves from their kids, and we have now experienced the sharpest surge in such a short period of time. We are on pace for over 700,000 apprehensions this fiscal year (which could easily be 1.5 million in total coming over the border, counting non-interdicted). The number of family units apprehended between points of entry skyrocketed by almost 2,151 percent since the rock-bottom numbers of the Trump effect in the spring of 2017. Yes, that is an emergency and needs to be addressed. The numbers are climbing higher every single month. Do we need to wait until it reaches the peak of the last wave before we get permission to pre-empt the peak of a new wave that should never have happened?

2) We are not returning these illegal aliens back to their countries

One of the big reasons why this wave of migrants not of Mexican origin is even worse than the previous waves of migration from Mexico is because we are not repatriating them. While it is true that we had years of over one million apprehensions during the 1990s and early 2000s, we also returned 1-1.5 million of them every year to Mexico. And we usually did so within hours. Now those numbers are down to 100,000-200,000 a year (not including removals from the interior, which take forever) because most of them are from other countries and are wrongly considered by the courts to be eligible for various forms of status. According to the DHS, only 1.1 percent of non-Mexican family unit aliens had been repatriated and only 1.8 percent of non-Mexican unaccompanied alien minors had been repatriated. For example, of the 31,754 unaccompanied minors CBP apprehended from the Central America in fiscal year 2017, 98.2 percent remain in the country today. It takes about a year to return just the total of aliens that come from a mere few days of apprehensions! In that sense, this wave is much more devastating to American taxpayers than previous waves because it’s permanent.

Also, in general, the courts are more aggressive than ever in blocking removals or returns. We are facing death by a thousand lawsuits, being forced to litigate deportations for months that once took us hours.

3) Nature of the migrants

Whereas in previous decades the migration consisted mainly of single adults, the current migration is being driven by the magnets of catch-and-release for teenagers and family units. This has created a humanitarian crisis with children the likes of which we’ve never seen before, even at the peak of the Mexican migration of last decade. By the media’s own admission, during the July showdown over “family separation,” this was a huge crisis. Well, that very media outcry has now incentivized a gushing flow from Guatemala and doubled the number of family units coming over even relative to the emergency levels of last July.

4) Shutdown of our Border Patrol

Our Border Patrol is being tied up in a way we’ve never seen before. Because most of the migrants are coming for amnesty through their children, they are purposely surrendering themselves to the border agents, not trying to evade detection as they did in past decades. This is the wave of “I have a credible fear” migrants. The number of migrants asserting credible fear and surrendering themselves to border agents has increased 1,744 percent from 2009 through FY 2018, and the numbers are now surging even higher. That is an emergency of stolen sovereignty, especially when you consider that violence went down in those countries precisely as migration went up. We are being taken advantage of.

It would be bad enough if that did not enable the drug cartels, but it does. The cartels use the surrendering migrants as diversions so they can smuggle in their Special Interest Aliens, drugs, criminals, and gangsters. In the past, the flow was more uniform, so Border Patrol could spread out and deter the cartels and their more high-value clients with the fear of interdiction. Now there are record numbers of bogus asylees, often 100 at a time, running straight for Border Patrol at the command of the cartels. This is taking border agents out of the field and turning them, quite literally, into babysitters and hospitals. That is when the drug cartels bring in all of the criminals and drugs, which is why that crisis began around 2014 with the flow of Central Americans.

None other than Obama’s DHS secretary, Jeh Johnson, warned about the “the increased global movement of SIAs” in July 2016, asserting that it demanded the “immediate attention” of the nation’s most senior immigration and border security leaders to counter.

5) The drug and gang crisis

This iteration of the migration has empowered the drug cartels more than ever to spawn the worst drug and gang crisis in our history. Back during the great wave of Mexican migrants, the drug problem was bad, but the deaths were a fraction of what they are today. MS-13 was almost eradicated during Bush’s second term. Now the gangs and cartels are stronger than ever. Everyone seems to recognize the drug crisis as an imminent emergency, except as it relates to its primary source: the border.

6) Drug cartels are more powerful and dangerous than ever before

The sheer fact that anybody is comparing this border problem to that of previous decades demonstrates a core problem. They fail to understand that the cartels have adapted to new dimensions of criminality and have become a bigger problem than before.

The cartel violence at our border is through the roof and much worse than in previous decades. Why? Because now that the cartels control the lucrative migration trade engendered by the amnesty agenda (catch-and-release, UACs, asylum, DACA, sanctuary cities), they fight for control over the turf. To fully understand the gravity of the cartels and why things have changed so much for the worse, I had a long interview with Jaeson Jones, a veteran of the border war, on my podcast on Monday. Jones is a retired captain of the Texas Department of Public Safety, Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division, who commanded and developed the Texas Border Security Operations Center (BSOC) currently under the Texas Rangers. Here’s what he said about the evolving threat of the cartels:

Children and people are now a commodity to the cartels. They have to pay what is known as the Peso, or the tax to the cartels, as they transit from southern part of Mexico all the way up to our northern border. Once you’re in control of a plaza, everything that moves through is paid for. That’s why they battle. That’s why they battle for control of that space. That’s basically the way it works, and it’s also why you are not going to enter the United States without working and contracting with the Mexican cartels.

Jones lamented the amount of crime from criminal alien networks that is not being quantified in federal data:

Along our southwest border right now, the level of cartel infiltration at local, and state, and federal levels is unbelievable. Look at the kidnappings that are occurring. The extortion, drug trafficking. … To this day at a national level, the American people have no idea how much dope is actually seized in this country. Human trafficking, labor trafficking, money laundering, weapon seizures, cybercrime. I mean the list goes on.

What about those who believe blocking cartel infiltration is somehow not the purview of national defense?

When we see these individuals learning the tradecraft of how to utilize armored vehicles and military-grade weapons in two-man, four-man, 10-man tactics … our everyday law enforcement officers domestically are not capable of handling that. That’s not what they train for.

Indeed, this is a national emergency quintessentially grounded in our national security more than anything else we do. The problem is here, and the time to address it is now. (For more from the author of “6 Things the Media Doesn’t Want You to Know About the Border Crisis” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE