Illegal Alien Kills Woman After Sanctuary Laws Protected Him From Deportation NINE TIMES

/0 Comments/in , /by

An illegal immigrant with prior convictions and multiple arrests for offenses such as false imprisonment and battery has been taken into custody in the stabbing death of a woman in San Jose, California. . .

Police say Carlos Eduardo Arevalo Carranza, 24, stalked 59-year-old Bambi Larson before breaking into her home and killing her in her bedroom last month. Larson’s body was discovered by her son on Feb. 28, when he checked in on her after she failed to show up for work.

Carranza was arrested Monday after investigators linked him to the crime using DNA evidence from Larson’s home. He was also seen on security footage “stalking” the area near Larson’s home on the day of her murder and well as leaving the residence after the crime was committed.

The transient’s lengthy rap sheet goes back to 2013 when he was arrested for crossing into the U.S. at the southern border. He was deported back to Mexico but returned only to be arrested another 10 times with at least three convictions prior to Larson’s murder, according to the Daily Mail.

San Jose Police Chief Eddie Garcia revealed at a news conference that ICE had applied nine times for a detainer on Carranza, which would have allowed for the suspect to be held longer than his jail term in order to allow federal authorities time to investigate his immigration status. (Read more from “Illegal Alien Kills Woman After Sanctuary Laws Protected Him From Deportation NINE TIMES” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Here’s How Many Top Economists Think AOC’s Policy Doesn’t Work

/0 Comments/in , /by

An economic policy espoused by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was found to have exactly zero support from top economists in a recent poll. . .

But in a poll from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business of 42 top economists, not one supported the basic tenets of the policy.

One question asked how much they supported the statement, “Countries that borrow in their own currency should not worry about government deficits because they can always create money to finance their debt.”

Another asked, “Countries that borrow in their own currency can finance as much real government spending as they want by creating money.”

(Read more from “Here’s How Many Top Economists Think AOC’s Policy Doesn’t Work” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Ocasio-Cortez Has EPIC Meltdown

/0 Comments/in , /by

During a House Financial Services Committee meeting hosted by Chairwoman Maxine Waters on Tuesday, democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) attempted to take down Wells Fargo CEO Timothy Sloan on the issue of climate change — and ended up inspiring widespread backlash for her non sequitur questions. Amid the wave of criticism for her performance at the hearing, the freshman representative and former bartender issued a series of tweets pushing back against those poking holes in her global warming logic.

At the hearing, titled “Holding Megabanks Accountable: An Examination of Wells Fargo’s Pattern of Consumer Abuses,” Ocasio-Cortez launched into a series of causally problematic accusations, attempting to blame the bank for the “caging of children” at the border, hypothetical “spills,” and “when we have to reinvest in infrastructure building sea walls from the erosion of … infrastructure or cleanups, wildfires” (videos below).

She then responded directly to criticism of her logic by A&E’s “Rodeo Girls” star Marvel Marisa Murphy, who wrote: “So using her own logic… Hypothetically, if @AOC made a drink while bartending, then served it to a person, who then killed a family of 5 while driving drunk, she should then be held accountable for the incident, right? Bartenders beware, she could be coming after you next!!”

“Actually, in NYC if you’re a bartender and knowingly over-serve to someone, you *ARE* liable for things they do after they leave the bar, because you knowingly put them at risk for $. Its called the Dram Shop Act. It’s a big reason why bartenders cut people off. And it works,” Ocasio-Cortez responded, adding in yet another post: “The key here is in the advance knowledge. When you *knowingly* do something that you know *in advance* will do harm, and do it anyway, you open yourself up. Companies *know in advance* that climate change will get worse if we keep growing fossil fuel consumption and production.”

(Read more from “Ocasio-Cortez Has EPIC Meltdown” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Mother of 11-Year-Old ‘Drag Kid’ Says Child Protective Services Showed up at Her Home

/0 Comments/in , /by

The parents of 11-year-old Desmond Napoles, a so-called “drag kid” known as “Desmond is Amazing,” have been investigated by authorities for alleged child abuse, confirmed mother Wendy Napoles via Instagram on Saturday.

As reported by The Daily Wire in December, Desmond, dressed in full drag, danced in a sexually suggestive manner on stage at a New York City-based gay bar called 3 Dollar Bill. As Desmond took off his jacket, howling men in the audience handed him dollar bills, as one might see at a strip club. The Daily Wire confirmed the existence of the disturbing “performance” but has chosen not to link to the exploitative footage.

Since the incident, authorities have been asked by concerned citizens to investigate the family for abuse. According to Life Site News, “Child Protective Services (CPS) investigated Desmond’s family, as did the New York City Administration for Child Services (ACS), the New York Police Department (NYPD), the Child Advocacy Center, the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Department of Labor, and the District Attorney’s Office.”

The boy’s mother said in a post that authorities have claimed the abuse allegations are “unfounded.” Wendy evidenced this with screenshots of such determinations via social media.

“We have been accused of child abuse, exploitation & maltreatment to the point that we have been backed into a corner trying to defend ourselves,” she said, fashioning herself the victim. “We have been under a microscope since early December. I never thought I would have to breach my own privacy & confidentiality to provide proof that has been demanded of us out of malice,” she added. (Read more from “Mother of 11-Year-Old ‘Drag Kid’ Says Child Protective Services Showed up at Her Home” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Grounds All Boeing 737 Flights, Along With Other Countries

/0 Comments/in , , /by

On Wednesday, President Trump announced that the United States will ground all Boeing 737 Max 8 planes in the United States, joining the European Union, India, and China, among others, which have suspended flights by the airplane after the crash of an Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max 8 on Sunday that killed 157 people. Trump stated, “Those planes are grounded effective immediately. Safety is our paramount concern.” . . .

Last October, a Lion Air Boeing 737 MAX 8 flight was lost over the Java Sea, killing 189 people. After that incident, the FAA sent out an emergency airworthiness directive to carriers and pilots in training on the 737 MAX 8 “to disengage the aircraft’s automated controls if there are anomalies.”

As The Daily Wire reported on Tuesday, the European Union and India announced they were banning the Boeing 737 Max from flying over their airspace, according to the BBC. The United Kingdom and China had banned the airplane already; the FAA in the U.S. had said the plane was airworthy, although Southwest Airlines, which operates 34 Boeing 737 Max airplanes, the most of any in America, said passengers booked on any flight with that airplane will be permitted to change their reservations. American Airlines, which operates 24 of the planes, stated its “standard policies for changes still apply.”

India’s Ministry of Civil Aviation said the 737 would be grounded “immediately,” adding, “These planes will be grounded till appropriate modifications and safety measures are undertaken to ensure their safe operations.” The EU Aviation Safety Agency stated the flights would be banned “as a precautionary measure.” It also stated, “The accident investigation is currently ongoing, and it is too early to draw any conclusions as to the cause of the accident.” . . .

Boeing has described the 737 series, which includes the 737 Max 7, 737 Max 8, 737 Max9, and 737 Max 10. Each new edition features more seats, as the “most popular jet aircraft of all time.” The 737 Max 8 typically contains between 162-178 seats, with a maximum of 210. It has a range of 6,570 kilometers, or roughly 4082 miles. It is almost 130 feet long and has a wingspan of almost 118 feet. As with the other aforementioned planes, its engine is a LEAP-1B from CFM International. (Read more from “Trump Grounds All Boeing 737 Flights, Along With Other Countries” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

House Democrats Attack Trump Budget for Spending Too Little … and Spending Too Much

/0 Comments/in , /by

If you need further proof of how dysfunctional the D.C. conversation about our national debt is, look no further than the conversation around President Trump’s latest budget proposal, where House Budget Committee Democrats simultaneously attacked the budget for spending too little and too much.

“These cuts in the Trump budget aren’t a tightening of the belt or a trimming of the fat, or even a serious attempt at reining in spending,” committee Chair John Yarmuth, D-Ky., said in his opening statement. “They are extreme to a level that is malicious — a level that is intended to do harm.”

Ro Khanna, D-Calif., grilled acting Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought on proposed Medicare cuts in the budget plan. Vought pointed out that the budget increases Medicare spending every year, but that the roughly $500 billion Khanna asked about would consist of savings from “commonsense” reforms to the program.

Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., grilled the director about why there were proposed cuts to certain types of green energy research at the Department of Energy.

“We believe that in a time of trillion-dollar deficits,” Vought answered, “that the resources that the Department of Energy has should be devoted towards basic research that would not otherwise be done by the private sector.”

Others slammed the budget because it added too much to the debt.

Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., hounded Vought on growing debt and deficits in the wake of Republicans’ 2017 tax cut bill and even managed to quote former Republican Speaker Paul Ryan in doing so. Moulton asked Vought about President Trump’s promise to get the debt under control in eight years in 2016; Vought conceded that at the end of that time frame, the current budget would still post trillion-dollar deficits.

You can watch the full hearing here:

So, to hear Democrats tell it, the proposed budget is bad because it spends too much and creates too much debt and it’s bad because it doesn’t spend enough on federal programs.

The budget proposal claims a fig leaf of fiscal responsibility by including just under $3 trillion in mandatory spending reductions in non-defense spending over the next ten years, five years after which it also is planned to balance, based on revenue increases from a jump-started economy.

But that’s up against $7.3 trillion in added total deficits with four straight projected years of trillion-dollar budget deficits.

We’re already $22 trillion in debt. Democrats can complain about the Republican tax cuts all they want, but the national debt was growing just fine before those became law, through the very programs that they don’t want to see cut. And as much as the president’s political opponents want to blame America’s current budgetary problems on the 2017 tax cuts, this problem can’t be fixed by taxation alone.

According to numbers from October, the 585 billionaires in the U.S. have a combined net worth of about 3.1 trillion. So even if some socialist scion were to take control of our fiscal policy and tax those billionaires for literally everything they were worth, we’d have enough revenue to make about a 14 percent dent in the national debt or fully fund a 4.75 trillion federal budget for 237.4 days (just under eight months). That’s it.

Furthermore, Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz explained last month that “this bipartisan era of debt is worse than anything we’ve seen this generation, and it is all happening with record revenue and a booming economy.”

Unless we actually want to tax our economy back to the Stone Age, the cuts are eventually going to have to come from somewhere. And because the federal leviathan is so big and its reach is so extensive, spending cuts are going to affect some people adversely no matter how they happen. But they have to happen at some point.

We need to have a conversation about how much we want the federal government to spend, and it needs to end with us spending a lot less. Yes, this would get the easy targets like quails on cocaine and other ridiculous examples. It needs to include how much we’re going to spend on entitlement programs like Medicare in the long run. And we also need to ask questions like whether or not the Pentagon ought to have an extra $4.6 million to spend on lobster and snow crab when it hasn’t yet passed an audit.

Bottom line: Until there’s a bipartisan consensus that we shouldn’t try to spend more taxpayer money than we bring in, this conversation will remain just as broken as it was Tuesday morning. (For more from the author of “House Democrats Attack Trump Budget for Spending Too Little … and Spending Too Much” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Here’s What a REAL Emergency Border Plan Would Look Like

/0 Comments/in , /by

Over the weekend, the president asserted that apprehended illegal aliens are not being let into our country. That is absolutely not the case, but the president does have the power to end catch-and-release. Why is talking about ending catch-and-release and not actually ending it?

Trump also declared this week in an interview with Breitbart, “I don’t want to have anyone coming in that’s on welfare.” Yet we are now bringing in hundreds of thousands of the most impoverished migrants through our border every year, and they will likely never be deported. Why is Trump so quiet since the data on the border emergency proved him right, and why is he not stepping up his game?

Catch-and-release at our border has gotten so bad that it has incentivized record numbers of impoverished Central Americans to surrender themselves to agents. This, in turn, creates such a shortage of beds that even the people who would otherwise not be released are now being released. They remain in our communities indefinitely, expose us to diseases, saddle taxpayers with public charge and crime, and tie up the resources of the border agents – all when we know the claim of asylum is bogus. The president is focusing his entire political capital in the emergency declaration on pennies in border wall funding, when these policies are causing us to bring in aliens from behind the border wall. Why is Trump not using his political capital to shut down catch-and-release and implement a true emergency plan that addresses the very emergency he decried and the media now admits exists?

Unfortunately, the illegal immigrants and the cartels don’t watch Trump’s CPAC speech or read his tweets. They look at what his government is actually doing on the ground at the border. Just since December 21, DHS has been forced to release 84,500 illegal aliens from Central American family units: 14,500 were in the Phoenix area, 37,500 in south Texas, 24,000 in El Paso, and 8,500 in San Diego, according to the Arizona Republic. Many of the ones dropped off this past weekend in Phoenix were in the country for less than 24 hours. Just from a health crisis standpoint, how can we be sure that Americans won’t be infected by those coming from places with rampant diseases when they are released so quickly?

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, who has watched every aspect of the immigration debate for decades, is wholly unimpressed with the administration’s half-hearted approach. “The Trump administration gives the impression that they have just given up on trying to preserve our border,” said Vaughan. “The top agency leaders like DHS Sec. Nielsen and CBP Director McAleenan are just throwing up their hands and saying, ‘We can’t do anything until Congress passes some new laws.’ They might as well be saying, ‘We can’t do anything until pigs fly.’ This administration is suffering from a lack of resolve, a lack of creative thinking, a lack of accountability, and a lack of leadership.”

For quite some time, I have noted that the president has declined to assert his ironclad power to block all immigration or foreign commerce on our soil. While the administration has announced a policy of returning some bogus asylum-seekers to Mexico at two points of entry, bizarrely, it has only selected 240 migrants for this new treatment. “That’s not enough to make a difference,” notes Vaughan.

Time will tell whether they expand this policy and are willing to tell the courts to stay in their lane.

Vaughan further notes that, with a declaration of an emergency, there is an entirely new power for the administration to tap in order to protect Americans from the effects of illegal immigration and deter future waves.

“If they are not going to use this policy [of denying claims on our soil], then another option would be to start following the official mass migration plan that was written and tested just before this crisis started in 2012-2013. This plan calls for DHS to stand up tent facilities adjacent to the existing detention centers used along the border and house illegal migrants there – even the families – in lieu of the dizzying catch-and-release process that is now the norm.”

This will ensure that aliens are kept quarantined away from our hospitals and communities and are not released on our dime. The president actually promised to do something similar last October when the problem wasn’t even as bad. “We’re going to build tent cities. We’re going to put tents up all over the place. We’re not going to build structures and spend all of this, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars — we’re going to have tents,” promised the president right before the midterm elections. Instead, we are actually building costly infrastructure for illegal aliens, expending enormous Border Patrol resources to house and transport them, and then we release them into our communities anyway.

According to Vaughan, centrally holding the migrants in several tent cities would also solve the catch-and-release problem and the self-fulfilling cycle of illegal aliens coming here to abscond their court dates.

“Under the law, CBP is allowed to detain families with kids for up to 72 hours, so they should process them within that period of time. They should operate like a night court, fulfilling the due process immediately, instead of dumping them on the existing immigration court system, which will take a minimum of eight years to complete the case, if they even show up, and most of them won’t. The courts are almost a farce right now; why carry on in this way? They could assign the asylum officers and judges to temporary emergency duty at the border – or better yet, hire some new temporary officers, such as retired USCIS and State Department officials, or others who can step in and adjudicate these cases according to the law as it is written. Such temporary duty is commonplace within DHS agencies and the State Department, and it should be done here. Heck, I’ll volunteer.”

Indeed, according to the DOJ’s Executive Office of Immigration Review, just in the first three months of this fiscal year, there were 17,200 removal orders issued in absentia. Meaning, even the people we get around to deporting wind up disappearing indefinitely and are added to the list of almost one million illegal aliens with final deportation orders who remain in the country. That is the lynchpin to the entire magnet at our border. Tent cities and a “rocket docket” of deportations in the contained detention area would cost a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the catch-and-release and will remove this magnet.

Thus, new migration can be chocked off by refusing to admit any new credible fear claims outside Mexico. Those already here can be sent to tent cities. What about those who have already absconded? Vaughan believes that it’s time we stop giving them de facto amnesty and extend our sovereignty over their lawlessness, which will further deter new migration.

“The president should direct ICE to create a list of all those who have absconded from the process by failing to appear for their court hearings or for removal. This is a felony, and criminal warrants should be issued. If any of these individuals is arrested for another crime, then the local law enforcement agency can hold them on ICE’s criminal warrant, and ICE can detain, process and remove them. In addition, ICE could staff special at-large enforcement teams to locate and remove them, using a share of its existing resources. … This job is no less important than other things ICE does like policing intellectual property violations and returning stolen antiquities.”

Obviously, ICE typically prioritizes the removal of the estimated two million criminal aliens in this country over other illegal aliens. But it would be worthwhile for them divert resources to specifically target those who abscond through catch-and-release because that is the primary cause of the current border crisis and it needs to be countered immediately.

The bottom line is the status quo is not an option, nor is expending all Trump’s political capital on $2.6 billion in funding. The president has broad authority to block immigration, regulate its flow, deport illegal aliens, change processing procedures, designate the cartels as terrorists, place the military at the border to counter the cartels, and deputize state and local law enforcement to help enforce immigration laws at the border. This needs to be an all-of-the-above approach, where all of Trump’s actions match his rhetoric of declaring an emergency. This will put him on firmer political ground and is better policy to stem the tide of illegal immigration and combat the cartels and drug trafficking.

As Jessica Vaughan warns, “If top administration officials are sitting around thinking that the situation will get so bad that Congress will have to act eventually, they are wrong.” She feels it’s time to open the tool box and use every option, including the emergency processing plan.

“I’m not in favor of executive power grabs, but I’m less in favor of open borders. It’s irresponsible to fail to act on this problem using the authorities that the president already has.” (For more from the author of “Here’s What a REAL Emergency Border Plan Would Look Like” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Watch: Immigrant Ninth Circuit Nominee Explains the Lesson His Dad Taught Him About America Through the Pain of Racism

/0 Comments/in , /by

At a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Ninth Circuit nominee Kenneth Lee told a powerful story of his experience with racism as a child and the uplifting lesson his dad gave him about America.

Lee’s family immigrated from South Korea during his childhood. Some time after their move to the U.S., Kenneth’s parents took him and his three sisters to Disneyland, he said.

To save money on the trip, the family packed a meal of traditional Korean food, which Lee noted was “very exotic” in the U.S. 35 years ago. He said he was mocked at the park by other children for what he was eating and what his family looked like.

“Little kids started coming up. Some said it smelled. Other said it looked like feces; they used a slightly different word,” Lee said. “One of them, I remember, was pointing to my parents, making kind of faux Asian-sounding names and pulling their eyes.”

“When you’re a kid, the smallest things seem like the world to you,” the nominee recalled. The next day, he told the committee, maybe because he “felt helpless, I blamed my dad for this whole thing, and I said ‘I want to go back. I want to go back to Korea. You never asked us if we wanted to come here, move to a new country.’”

“My dad was a stoic man, but he said, ‘I know it’s tough for you; it’s tough on your sisters; it’s tough on me, your mom,’” Lee said. “‘I know it’s tough here, but you don’t want to go back,’ he said, ‘because things aren’t fair there.’”

Lee said his father told him that in South Korea, family-owned conglomerates (known as Chaebol) wield oligarchic power and influence. “‘They control the government, they control the economy, they control the laws, so you’re not gonna get a fair shot there.’”

“But, he said, here in America, things are different,” Lee recalled. “It doesn’t matter that you’re not white. It doesn’t matter you weren’t born here. It doesn’t matter that our family doesn’t have wealth or power. He said everyone here is treated equally.”

“My dad wasn’t a lawyer; he never read the Federalist Papers,” Lee concluded. “But he had a gut understanding of what makes our country and our Constitution so great, so powerful, and so unique in the world. And I’ve always remembered that.”

This answer flies in the face of concerns from committee Democrats and liberal outside groups over Lee’s views on race because of things he wrote about affirmative action as a teenager.

The answer was prompted by a question from Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah. The relevant portion of the answer is below, and video of the full committee hearing is here. Watch:

(For more from the author of “Watch: Immigrant Ninth Circuit Nominee Explains the Lesson His Dad Taught Him About America Through the Pain of Racism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The FBI Was Close to Charging Hillary Clinton in 2016 — Here’s Who Shut It Down

/1 Comment/in , , /by

By The Blaze. Newly released transcripts from a controversial former FBI lawyer’s testimony before Congress show that the FBI was considering charging Hillary Clinton in 2016 when the Department of Justice shut down the possibility.

Lisa Page was identified as the other side of a text message conversation with FBI agent Peter Strzok that derided then-candidate Donald Trump ahead of the election.

Her private testimony before a joint task force of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees shed light on the controversial decision by former FBI Director James Comey to publicly criticize Clinton but not charge her with any crime.

Some cite the decision as part of the reason Clinton was defeated in the 2016 presidential race. Others see the reticence of the FBI to charge Clinton as evidence of a “deep state” bias towards the Democratic party and against President Donald Trump.

Page responded in her testimony to Republican concerns that the FBI did not seriously consider pressing charges against Clinton out of a bias against Trump, according to the Washington Examiner. (Read more from “The FBI Was Close to Charging Hillary Clinton in 2016 — Here’s Who Shut It Down” HERE)

_____________________________________________

Lisa Page said senior FBI officials wanted to take Hillary Clinton down

By Washington Examiner. Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified last year that top officials in the bureau expressed bias against Hillary Clinton while she was being investigated for her emails.

The claim, part of newly released transcripts from private testimony in front of a joint task force of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees in July 2018, contrasts with the prevailing concern among some conservatives that there has been an anti-Trump tilt in the upper levels of the Justice Department and FBI.

“I am aware of senior FBI officials talking to subordinate FBI officials on the Hillary Clinton investigative team who unquestionably had anti-Hillary sentiment, but who also said: You have to get her or — again, I don’t have an exact quote — but like we’re counting on you, you know,” Page said.

Page was being grilled by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, who asked how these subordinate officials would respond.

“My guess is they just probably parried and said: Just follow the facts, ma’am/sir. It’s a challenging place to be put in, I would say,” she replied.” (Read more from “Lisa Page said senior FBI officials wanted to take Hillary Clinton down” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Are We Entering the Age of the Biochip?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Biochips are usually encased in medical glass, have a tiny antenna and an integrated circuit that transmits data when scanned by an electronic reader.

They might be little more than a gadget at this point, but they’re showing signs of catching on. The tiny chips already can replace keys, credit cards and train tickets and buy snacks. The tipping point from novelty to necessity seems inevitable. But what about security? What about privacy?

In 2004, the FDA approved a chip that would store medical records and be implanted in the upper arm. The idea was that it would save time in an emergency. Doctors would be able to scan the chip and quickly learn the patient’s blood type, allergies and health history. A market for the chip didn’t materialize. It failed. A key reason: Doctors said patients were concerned about privacy. . .

Five states — California, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Wisconsin — already have passed laws prohibiting “mandatory implantation” of biochips. And what about hacking? As more and more people get biochipped and credit card numbers are stored, won’t criminals soon follow? It’s happened with credit cards, and they are passive. . .

Whether or not it’s the end times, a more immediate question might be: Will biochips mark the end of our personal privacy, or will they finally be embraced by a once-skeptical public? (Read more from “Are We Entering the Age of the Biochip?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE