Here’s How Far from Current Law Our Border Debate Has Shifted

In 2006, a super-majority of Congress passed the Secure Fence Act. It required that no less than 850 miles of double-layer fencing be constructed on our border. But it also codified a sense of purpose and a clearly defined mission for Border Patrol, to which everyone at the time agreed. It required the secretary of homeland security to “take all actions” necessary within 18 months of passage to “achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States” (emphasis added). What has ever come of this requirement?

Section 2(b) of the bill defined “operational control” as “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.”

What is going on today, a long time after the law’s passage, is the opposite of operational control. The cartels have complete operational control over critical population areas around the Rio Grande River, and illegal immigration, more than ever before, is strategically being used by the cartels for smuggling in narcotics, contraband, and dangerous aliens.

The Secure Fence Act passed the Senate 80-19 on September 14, 2006, with support from Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Dianne Feinstein, among other Democrat luminaries. Even while they were pushing for amnesty that very year for those here illegally who had resided in the country for a long time, everyone universally understood that the border had to be secured from new illegal immigration and cartel activities.

How is it that 13 years later, our border is worse than ever, and these very same politicians now believe our Border Patrol exists for the purpose of processing, caring for, and managing a border invasion rather than repelling it? And how is it that even Republicans are incapable of properly messaging the provisions of current law and the authority of any sovereign nation to deny entry and turn back illegal aliens, especially when they are used as weapons by dangerous cartels?

But this radical shift in mindset is not even 13 years old. When the first wave of Central American children began coming to Texas’ Rio Grande Valley in 2014, Obama shut it down within a few months, even though the magnitude of the problem was a fraction of the crisis today.

Here are the key numbers from the crisis in the spring to summer of 2014: The number of apprehensions spiked to over 57,000 in March and then peaked at 68,804 and 66,541 in May and June respectively. There was a big legislative fight and a lot of coverage over the unaccompanied teens being smuggled in over the summer, and by August, the numbers were below 40,000, where they remained more or less until the final months of Obama’s presidency.

Obama’s border supplemental request at the time called for more funding to “repatriate and reintegrate migrants to Central America” and for a media campaign in Central America to “deliver the message that unaccompanied children are not given a permit to stay in the U.S.” They didn’t just talk about more funding for humanitarian amnesty programs.

In a famous interview with George Stephanopoulos on June 26, Obama said very emphatically, “Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it, they’ll get sent back. More importantly, they may not make it.”

Rather than virtue-signal over the deaths of migrants and blame them on Border Patrol and ICE, Obama very clearly recognized that their deaths, while tragic, of course, were the result of their own trip and that the way to prevent such tragedy is by not coming in the first place. “Our message absolutely is don’t send your children unaccompanied, on trains or through a bunch of smugglers,” said Obama. “We don’t even know how many of these kids don’t make it, and may have been waylaid into sex trafficking or killed because they fell off a train.”

Fast-forward five years, and we have 10 straight months of 50,000 or more apprehensions and four months of over 100,000, dwarfing the 2014 wave. But it’s worse than just the macro numbers. At the peak of the 2014 wave, the number of family unit apprehensions, which really places a greater strain on Border Patrol, exceeded 12,000 for just two months before being shut down. We have now been at over double that level for 10 consecutive months and, in recent months, over five times that level.

And yet, even Republicans refuse to discuss funding for repatriation. It’s all about the migrants and not concern for Americans, when even Obama had the moral clarity to understand that Americans come first and that to care for migrants, the best recourse is to dissuade them from making the trip. Republicans have no plans to fight for more detention space and deportation funding. They recently passed a bill fueling more catch-and-release, which will pull more agents off the line without a commensurate amount of enforcement funding. They also funded more legal aid for them to litigate their way into the country. And that was considered the conservative bill!

There seems to be a lawyer for every illegal alien desiring to nullify our immigration laws. Why is there nobody in government willing to finally enforce the mandate to “achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States” and prevent “all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband”?

We were owed that outcome, the outcome any first world nation should expect, 13 years ago. It’s never too late to fulfil the promise. (For more from the author of “Here’s How Far from Current Law Our Border Debate Has Shifted” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Disabled Man Dies After 9 Days of Court-Ordered Forced Starvation

Following nine days of starvation, after French courts gave the green light to his slow, torturous means of death at the hands of French doctors, 42-year-old Vincent Lambert passed away Thursday.

The Catholic Herald reported that Lambert, a disabled French man and former nurse, died in Reims, France, after a years-long legal battle between his wife and his parents.

The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life tweeted that Lambert’s death was a “defeat for our humanity.” In a separate statement, Pope Francis urged: “Let us not build a civilization that discards persons those whose lives we no longer consider to be worthy of living: every life is valuable, always.”

Lambert was left a quadriplegic after sustaining massive head injuries during a 2008 traffic accident. His wife wanted to take him off life support years ago; his parents didn’t. After years of legal battles that went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Cassation in June overruled an order to maintain Lambert’s feeding and hydration support, a story at Aleteia explained.

On July 2, doctors informed the family that Lambert’s tube would be removed, effectively condemning the man to a slow death by starvation and dehydration.

Following the July decision, Lambert’s mother, Viviane, issued a final, desperate plea to save her son.

“I am launching a call for help today. Without your intervention, my son will be euthanized due to his brain handicap,” Viviane told a U.N. panel in Geneva, explaining that her son was “in a state of minimal [consciousness] but he is not a vegetable.”

“In May, when learning about his planned death, [Vincent] cried,” Viviane continued. “We are deeply upset this is why we have turned to the U.N. Committee of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities because the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities prohibits depriving a person of food and drink.”

“He sleeps at night, wakes up during the day, and looks at me when I talk,” Viviane said. “He only needs to be fed through a special device and his doctor wants to deprive him of this so that he can die, while legal experts have have shown that this is not necessary.”

“It’s murder in disguise,” Vincent’s 90-year-old father, Pierre Lambert, told reporters at the hospital earlier this week. “It’s euthanasia.” (For more from the author of “Disabled Man Dies After 9 Days of Court-Ordered Forced Starvation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump to Announce Executive Action on Census Citizenship Question

President Trump will announce an executive action to add the citizenship question to the 2020 census, two senior administration officials have confirmed to CBS News. He tweeted that he’ll be making a statement on the topic Thursday afternoon.

The anticipated 5 p.m. announcement comes as the president exhibits frustration over the Supreme Court decision blocking the Trump administration from adding the question, ruling that his administration had failed to provide adequate justification for the question. Multiple legal battles over the question are still playing out in lower courts.

It isn’t yet clear exactly what kind of executive action the president will take. Mr. Trump initially described his announcement as a news conference, but the updated White House schedule only described the event as remarks — meaning reporters might not have an opportunity to ask questions. Attorney General William Barr is expected to be at the president’s announcement. . .

The House has set a date of July 16 to vote to hold Barr and Commerce Department Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt of Congress for refusing to respond to questions about the census.

“These documents could shed light on the real reason that the Trump Administration tried to add the citizenship question,” House Oversight and Reform Chairman Elijah Cummings said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the administration is stonewalling our investigation and obstructing our efforts to get the information we need to do our jobs. We should not be forced to take these extreme actions to get the documents and information we need to conduct a thorough investigation. I urge Attorney General Barr and Secretary Ross to change course and produce the documents we have subpoenaed on a bipartisan basis so the House is not forced to hold them in contempt of Congress.” (Read more from “Trump to Announce Executive Action on Census Citizenship Question” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

As ICE Prepares for Raids, Dems Give Legal Advice to Illegal Aliens

On Thursday, after days of internecine warfare, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez found something they could agree upon: giving legal advice to illegal immigrants as to how they could hide from agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who are scheduled to conduct raids on Sunday in ten major cities across the nation.

Pelosi stated at a press conference: “An ICE deportation warrant is not the same as a deportation warrant. If that is the only document ICE brings to a home raid, agents do not have the legal right to enter a home. If ICE agents don’t have a warrant signed by a judge, a person may refuse to open the door and let them in. An administrative order of removal from ICE or immigration authorities is simply not enough. Families belong together; everyone in our country has rights. Many of these families are mixed-status families.”

Ocasio-Cortez echoed on Twitter, “CE will launch raids across 10 major cities this SUNDAY. Check your neighbors & know your rights. Remember: no one can enter your home without a *judicial warrant.* Sometimes ICE will try to show other papers to get in your house. Judicial warrants are from a court. No matter who you are or what your status is, this is the United States of America – where ALL people have rights. Know yours. Prepare. Visit https://WeHaveRights.US to learn how to handle this & other ICE encounters in multiple languages.”

(Read more from “As Ice Prepares for Raids, Dems Give Legal Advice to Illegal Aliens” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

According to Ocasio-Cortez, the Feud Between Her and Pelosi Is Because of Racism

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) attacked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during multiple recent interviews, going as far as to say that she believes that Pelosi is targeting her because Pelosi is racist. . .

“The last time I kind of spoke to her one on one was when she asked me to join the Select Committee on Climate Change,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “I was assigned to some of the busiest committees and four subcommittees. So my hands are full. And sometimes I wonder if they’re trying to keep me busy.”

Ocasio-Cortez suggested to The Washington Post on Wednesday that Pelosi was a racist: “When these comments first started, I kind of thought that she was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm’s distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood. But the persistent singling out . . . it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful . . . the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.”

Pelosi has repeatedly mocked Ocasio-Cortez and the other three far-left freshmen House Democrats, recently telling The New York Times: “All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world. But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”

Pelosi echoed a similar statement in April, saying: “While there are people who have a large number of Twitter followers, what’s important is that we have large numbers of votes on the floor of the House.” (Read more from “According to Ocasio-Cortez, the Feud Between Her and Pelosi Is Because of Racism” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

New Poll Shows President Trump Beating Top 2020 Dems

President Donald Trump is poised to beat a handful of top-tier Democratic presidential candidates in the 2020 election, while losing to others, according to a new poll of head-to-head matchups.

The latest poll from Emerson College is yet another reflecting positively for Trump, who has a number of advantages and disadvantages going into the 2020 election as nearly two dozen Democrats are all vying to unseat him from the White House.

Trump edges out several candidates 51-49, including rising Democratic stars such as Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

The race gets tougher for Trump when facing former Vice President Joe Biden, who according to the poll would beat the incumbent Republican 53-47. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont also wins a head-to-head matchup 51% to Trump’s 49%.

The poll also gave Trump a decisive edge over his Republican primary challenger in former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, leading the former Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee 91-9. (Read more from “New Poll Shows President Trump Beating Top 2020 Dems” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Christian Views Kept Star Player off U.S. Women’s Soccer Team, According to Complaints

By Fox News. As the U.S. Women’s World Cup champions continue to celebrate their recent triumph, some observers are wondering whether a top-tier American player was left off the team because of her religious views.

Jaelene Hinkle, 26, a native of Colorado who played college soccer at Texas Tech, is a defender for the North Carolina Courage of the National Women’s Soccer League. . .

But in 2015, Hinkle had objected publicly to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.

View this post on Instagram

Jesus didn't come to save those who already believed in Him. He came so that the lost, rejected, and abandoned men and women would find Him and believe. I believe with every fiber in my body that what was written 2,000 years ago in the Bible is undoubtedly true. It's not a fictional book. It's not a pick and choose what you want to believe. You either believe it, or you don't. This world may change, but Christ and His Word NEVER will. My heart is that as Christians we don't begin to throw a tantrum over what has been brought into law today, but we become that much more loving. That through our love, the lost, rejected, and abandoned find Christ. The rainbow was a convent made between God and all his creation that never again would the world be flooded as it was when He destroyed the world during Noah's time. It's a constant reminder that no matter how corrupt this world becomes, He will never leave us or forsake us. Thank you Lord for your amazing grace, even during times of trial and confusion. Love won over 2,000 years ago when the greatest sacrifice of all time was made for ALL mankind. ❤️💜💛💚💙

A post shared by Jaelene Hinkle (@jaelenehinkle) on

Then, in 2017 Hinkle drew criticism when she declined to play in two matches for the U.S. women’s national team, reportedly because she didn’t want to wear special team jerseys recognizing Gay Pride Month. . .

Later, Hinkle was dropped from the U.S. national team for reasons solely related to soccer, team officials claimed, according to the newspaper. But the report noted that Hinkle’s public persona contrasts sharply with that of Team USA captain Megan Rapinoe, who also plays in the NWSL. (Read more from “Christian Views Kept Star Player off U.S. Women’s Soccer Team, According to Complaints” HERE)

____________________________________________

U.S. Women’s Team Snub of Christian Player Roils Soccer

By The Washington Times. The celebration continued Wednesday for the U.S. women’s soccer team after its historic Women’s World Cup title, even as questions resurfaced about why one of the best players in the nation wasn’t there. . .

Conservative pundit Erick Erickson said Monday that she was “shoved aside” in a sport known for “feminist virtue signaling,” while The Irish Times ran the June 12 headline “Religious clash leaves USA’s best left back an observer of World Cup bid.”

“You do have a very activist team. It’s very much a part of the program,” said John Stonestreet, president of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview in Colorado Springs, Colorado. “And if we were talking about just any player, it wouldn’t be really clear, but just because of her abilities — Jaelene Hinkle is a heck of a player — it makes it that much more suspect.”

He said the episode offered a warning to Christians seeking to live out their faith while pursuing their professional dreams: Chances are that they, too, will face a choice. It could be whether to wear the jersey. It could be whether to bake the cake.

“We know that increasingly there is going to have to be conformity on your viewpoint to be able to participate,” Stonestreet said. “I think that’s inevitable. We use the phrase ‘the theology of being fired’ — in this case, it’s the theology of being cut.” (Read more from “U.S. Women’s Team Snub of Christian Player Roils Soccer” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

American Psychological Association Pushes Polyamory

Remember when psychologists’ goal was to help people live balanced and ordered lives? Now, it seems, the profession’s highest purpose is to empower and validate people’s deepest desires and sexual urges without having to suffer “stigma” or any adverse judgments from themselves or society.

Hence, the American Psychological Association has launched the “Non-Monogamy Task Force,” the goal of which seem to be the promotion of sexual anarchy and the muting of polyamorists’ moral consciences:

The APA Division 44 Consensual Non-monogamy Task Force promotes awareness and inclusivity about consensual non-monogamy and diverse expressions of intimate relationships. These include but are not limited to: people who practice polyamory, open relationships, swinging, relationship anarchy and other types of ethical non-monogamous relationships.

Finding love and/or sexual intimacy is a central part of most people’s life experience. However, the ability to engage in desired intimacy without social and medical stigmatization is not a liberty for all. This task force seeks to address the needs of people who practice consensual non-monogamy, including their intersecting marginalized identities.

(Read more from “American Psychological Association Pushes Polyamory” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

VANITY FAIR: Trump Knew Epstein Had Recorded Incriminating Sex Pics With Clinton; Records Reveal Bill’s Statement About Controversy Is a COMPLETE LIE

(Editor’s note: For years, Restoring Liberty has been publishing stories regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s corrupt Florida plea deal, his connections to numerous global leaders, and his apparent library of images of politicians committing heinous acts. For more information, please visit this link. Restoring Liberty congratulates Donald Trump’s Department of Justice for finally attempting to bring accountability to these sickos)

By MICHAEL VAN DER GALIEN. Back in 2015, onstage at the annual CPAC conference, Trump said something very interesting about Bill Clinton. “Nice guy,” he said. “Got a lot of problems coming up, in my opinion, with the famous island with Jeffrey Epstein. Lot of problems.”

Trump knew what he was talking about. Vanity Fair reports that, shortly before CPAC, Trump was approached by David Pecker, who then owned the National Enquirer. Pecker visited Trump and brought along “an issue with a Prince Andrew and Epstein-related cover.” They were joined by Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.

After the meeting, Trump called in Sam Nunberg, who then worked for him. Nunberg told Vanity Fair:

“Michael was sitting in there when I came in, and the issue of the National Enquirer with the pictures of Prince Andrew was on his desk. He said not to tell anyone, but that Pecker had just been there and had brought the issue with him. Trump said that Pecker had told him that the pictures of Clinton that Epstein had from his island were worse.”

What makes Vanity Fair’s report double fascinating is that the leftist magazine clearly implies that Epstein doesn’t have any dirt on Trump himself. (Read more about Epstein recording incriminating sex pics HERE)

_________________________________________________

Records Show Clinton Dined with Epstein in 1995, Predating Public Timeline

By Fox News. Former President Bill Clinton dined with financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 1995, records show—years before the interactions detailed in a statement from his office earlier this week.

That statement condemned the wealthy hedge fund manager after his indictment for alleged sex trafficking crimes was unsealed Monday. The statement said Clinton “knows nothing” about Epstein’s alleged crimes and included a timeline of Clinton’s interactions with him starting in 2002.

But according to a story published back in March 1995 by the Palm Beach Post, then-President Clinton attended a “three-hour dinner” at the time with a “very select group of people” at the Palm Beach home of business magnate Ron Perelman. The diverse group included Epstein — as well as singer Jimmy Buffet, actor Don Johnson, then-co-chairman of the Democratic National Committee Don Fowler and others.

“Joining Clinton for a three-hour dinner was a very select group of people, some of whom, according to one Democratic Party source, gave as much as $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee for the privilege of dining with the president,” the report said.

The nearly 25-year-old report, reviewed by Fox News, indicates that Clinton and Epstein interacted years before the instances detailed in the former president’s statement this week. (Read more from “Records Show Clinton Dined with Epstein in 1995, Predating Public Timeline” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Judge Won’t Designate Retired Gen. Michael Flynn Co-Conspirator in Foreign Lobbying Scheme

A judge has rejected federal prosecutors’ last-minute attempts to name former national security adviser and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn a co-conspirator in a Turkish lobbying scheme.

Judge Anthony Trenga on Tuesday decided against the prosecution’s attempt to designate Flynn a co-conspirator in the case against his former business partner, citing lack of evidence, according to court documents obtained by the Daily Caller.

“The United States at this point has not presented or proffered evidence sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence a conspiracy for the purposes of admitting against the Defendant the hearsay statements of alleged co-conspirators pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E),” Trenga wrote, noting a federal rule that prohibits new evidence from being introduced during an ongoing criminal trial. . .

Prosecutors wanted Flynn classified as a co-conspirator in order to submit hearsay evidence. They decided suddenly last week that Flynn would not be testifying as a part of their trial plan in the case against his former business partner, Bijan Kian, according to a court filing on July 3.

Flynn’s legal team criticized the prosecution’s move and attempt to re-characterize Flynn after months of insisting he was their key cooperating witness. Prosecutors even specifically said in June that they did not consider Flynn a co-conspirator. (Read more from “Judge Won’t Designate Retired Gen. Michael Flynn Co-Conspirator in Foreign Lobbying Scheme” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE