Progressive Journalists Say They Were ‘Harassed’ by Buttigieg Campaign Staff (VIDEO)

A pair of progressive journalists alleged that they were repeatedly harassed by staffers for the Buttigieg campaign at an event in New Hampshire, including an attempt to physically take away their preapproved press credentials.

Status Coup co-founder/reporter Jordan Chariton and video journalist Jamal Jones attended the campaign event on Sunday in Nashua, New Hampshire, where former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg was set to appear. Ahead of the event, Chariton and Jones were interviewing attendees in line outside, but Chariton said he noticed they were being followed by Buttigieg field staffer Julia Fiedler, who went on to “eavesdrop” on interviews, which went on for roughly a half an hour. . .

Chariton, a supporter for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said he and Jones entered Elm Street Middle School, the venue for the rally, and picked up their press credentials at check-in and waited with other members of the media until the campaign allowed them to enter the gymnasium. Moments later, after interviewing more attendees, they were approached by another Buttigieg staffer and were asked if they had press credentials or if they “snuck in.” . . .

Things escalated when Jones went to go grab his camera gear and was approached by a different campaign staffer who snatched his press credentials that was clipped to his jacket and told him, “I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re supposed to have press credentials.” He later expressed he felt like he was being “attacked.”

“I felt I was singled out,” Jones told Fox News. “I’m not sure whether it was because of the company I work for or the color of my skin, but I was definitely singled out because they didn’t do that to anyone else there that I saw.” (Read more from “Progressive Journalists Say They Were ‘Harassed’ by Buttigieg Campaign Staff (VIDEO)” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Prosecutors Seek 7 to 9 Years in Prison for Roger Stone

Federal prosecutors are urging that longtime Donald Trump adviser and Republican political provocateur Roger Stone be sent to prison for about seven to nine years for his conviction on charges of lying and witness tampering during investigations of ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Following a weeklong trial last November, a Washington jury took found Stone guilty on all seven felony counts he faced: five of making false statements to Congress, one of obstruction of Congress, and one of witness tampering with both the House Intelligence Committee inquiry and special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.

In a sentencing filing Monday, prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington argued that Stone’s conduct was exceptionally sinister because of the importance of those investigations and the danger of overseas influence on U.S. elections.

“Foreign election interference is the ‘most deadly adversar[y] of republican government,’” prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington wrote, quoting Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper No. 68. “Investigations into election interference concern our national security, the integrity of our democratic processes, and the enforcement of our nation’s criminal laws. These are issues of paramount concern to every citizen of the United States. Obstructing such critical investigations thus strikes at the very heart of our American democracy.” (Read more from “Prosecutors Seek 7 to 9 Years in Prison for Roger Stone” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump’s Budget Proposal Shows He’s Willing to Cut Spending If Conservatives Would Fight for It

It’s become a perennial joke. Every year in February, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) introduces an ambitious budget proposal to slash spending and abolish wasteful programs. Then, by the end of the year, not only is every principle of that proposal jettisoned in the actual budget signed by the president, but the new budget increases spending for every program that he promised to cut.

Yet the fact that the president is willing to put his name on a conservative budget demonstrates that it doesn’t have to be this way. If outside conservative organizations, media, and members of Congress would actually stay focused, President Trump’s second term can be more fiscally conservative.

The few of us who still care about limited government experienced heartburn when the president proposed more big government programs without mentioning the debt bomb during what was otherwise a terrific State of the Union Address last week. The president railed against socialism and how it “destroys nations,” then proceeded to propose ideas that can only be described as socialism lite.

The typical response I’ve heard from some colleagues is, “Well, Trump was never going to be a limited government president.” However, that is simply not true, as we see from his willingness to sign on to conservative budgets every year, more conservative than any president in modern history. Sure, the president was never going to make changes to Social Security and Medicare, but everything else – from Medicaid and welfare to foreign aid and domestic non-defense discretionary spending – was all fair game.

Unfortunately, unfocused conservatives have allowed Democrats to work with the ineffective GOP leaders in Congress to increase spending to record levels that blow out the shocking levels of the Obama era. Annual spending by the Department of Education, for example, is now up to $83 billion, 24 percent higher (in non-inflation-adjusted dollars) than during Obama’s spendathon in 2009. With a booming job market and record revenue, spending and deficits are blowing out the levels accrued during the deepest recession in generations.

But again, today’s budget release demonstrates that it doesn’t have to be this way. Trump will sign a bad budget if the swamp consensus coalesces around it. But at the same time, if conservatives work to back the non-swamp elements of the administration pushing for spending cuts the president is clearly OK with, he would sign a good budget as well.

In light of the recent increase in spending on foreign aid, the budget proposal cuts 21 percent from the State Department and international assistance programs. The EPA would be cut by 27 percent and energy subsidies by 29 percent. Overall, the budget envisions $2.4 trillion in 10-year cuts to discretionary spending and war spending from the baseline forecast and another $2 trillion in reductions from “mandatory spending” programs, such as food stamps and Medicaid.

The budget does, of course, include some big government proposals, such as a new “paid family leave” entitlement. However, it also contains a lot of spending cuts. But if conservatives don’t stay focused, we will be left with the bad stuff and none of the spending cuts, as has been the case for the first term.

The proposal also contains a critical funding increase for ICE. With over three million known criminal aliens targeted for deportation who remain in the country, ICE has just 5,000 deportation officers to deal with them. This proposal would increase ICE funding by $1.8 billion, which includes more funding for detention space as well as extra funding to hire several thousand more officers.

If nothing else, this budget demonstrates that the more we keep digging into the red, the further to the left the baseline on spending moves and the harder it will be to dig out. Even this budget, which the media will decry as draconian and heartless to the children, elderly, sick, and puppies, envisions $4.8 trillion in spending this year, which is higher than Obama’s final budget for fiscal year 2017, even adjusted for inflation. The total spending over 10 years is projected at $56.3 trillion. Of the $4.6 trillion in projected deficit reductions under the bill, roughly $1.5 billion is achieved through new revenue projections based on GDP growth we have failed to achieve, precisely because of the growth of the deficit. Time is of the essence.

If Trump weren’t open to conservative ideas in many areas of fiscal policy, he would not have Russ Vought as his budget guru. Clearly, his instincts are to cut at least some spending. The question is whether conservatives will take yes for an answer. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Budget Proposal Shows He’s Willing to Cut Spending If Conservatives Would Fight for It” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

In Switzerland, You Can Now Go to Jail for Being Publicly Homophobic

Swiss voters agreed on Sunday to penalize public homophobia, greenlighting an amendment to an antidiscrimination law that had not provided protection for lesbians, gay men and bisexual people. . .

Voters were asked in a referendum whether they wanted to extend Switzerland’s racism statutes to sexual orientation, and on Sunday 63.1 percent voted in favor of it. The extension was backed by the government and most of Switzerland’s political parties.

Unlike most countries in Western Europe, Switzerland did not have a law that specifically protects lesbians, gay men and bisexual people from discrimination. Publicly denigrating someone’s sexual orientation, or inciting hatred against someone in public, could not be prosecuted. (Read more from “In Switzerland, You Can Now Go to Jail for Being Publicly Homophobic” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

U.S. Special Forces Soldiers Killed in Ambush Set by Our Afghan Army ‘Friends’

During last week’s State of the Union address, President Trump promised to wind down the operations in Afghanistan, noting that our troops “are warfighters, the best in the world, and they either want to fight to win or not fight at all.” Given that there really is nothing to fight for there but an unreliable Afghan government, Trump said, “We are working to finally end America’s longest war and bring our troops back home!” The deaths of two more soldiers demonstrate that the pace needs to be picked up.

On Saturday, it was announced that two soldiers were killed and six others wounded when a team of commandoes from the 3rd Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group were ambushed by the very Afghan National Army forces they were helping in east Afghanistan. Last year, every special forces group suffered at least one fatality in Afghanistan, and that deadly trend is continuing this year: 22 soldiers died in 2019, the most since 2014. Six soldiers have already died so far this year, in only five weeks.

In the case of Antonio Rodriguez, one of the soldiers killed this week, this was reportedly his tenth deployment. What could possibly be so vital in that land that warrants such exhaustion of our special forces?

Not only are we sending our best warfighters into a meat grinder with no defined mission or logical outcome, we are having them fight for a compromised force, making them subject to endless “green on blue” attacks. In the ultimate paradox, we are so invested in building up the Afghan military that we bring thousands of unvetted Afghans to our shores every year under the guise of helping a war effort that in itself is placing our troops in danger from unvetted coalition “partners.”

Several hundred Afghan military trainees have gone AWOL in our country. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) observed that the “limited vetting of Afghan trainees, and the restrictions of the investigatory and asylum processes, may pose a security risk to the United States when trainees go AWOL.” We’ve spent about $81 billion on the Afghan security forces, as part of a nearly $1 trillion price tag for the two-decade war.

This social work in a dangerous combat zone should have ended the first month of the Trump presidency. The president has wanted to put Afghanistan in our rear-view mirror, but despite the bipartisan support for ending this madness, the nearly unanimous voices from our broken national security leadership demanded the president double down. In August 2017, the president announced a surge of troops with no strategy of what to do with them. Two and a half years later, it’s time for the president to follow his better judgement and fire those in the administration who are resisting.

What he is likely hearing is what we continue to hear from many establishment Republican congressmen. They essentially argue, “We need to fight them there, so they don’t come here.”

This is exactly what Reps. Dan Crenshaw and Michael Waltz regurgitated yesterday.

This is the most absurd line of argument imaginable. It’s only because of the war that we are bringing foreign nationals to our shores in record numbers. The same unvetted Afghans ambushing our soldiers are being brought here in the thousands every year. The number of special immigration visas from Afghanistan has increased over the Trump years, and they are not subject to the refugee cap. We’ve brought in roughly 65,000 individuals who helped us fight “there.”

These swamp congressmen must understand the admonition of the 9/11 commission staff report: that 9/11 was all about visas and immigration because “terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country.” Now, in addition to 2,500 dead and tens of thousands of wounded soldiers fighting “over there,” we have nothing to show for the war other than 100,000 largely unvetted new Afghan migrants.

There is no need to “negotiate” a phony peace deal with the Taliban. We should pull out on our own timetable, keep our naval and air assets in the region for strike and maneuver operations, which allow us to fight to our strengths instead of our enemies’ strengths, and then seal our own border.

The fact that we had a surge in Afghanistan rather than a redeployment of those soldiers to our border under the Trump presidency is a prime example of the failure of conservative media. The president is undeniably unhappy with our presence in Afghanistan. However, the inertia to stay there is one-sided among the voices at the DOD and State. Absent counter-pressure from outside conservatives, who have been distracted by everything but policy issues for the past three years, the president feels forced to stay the course. Thus, by conservatives laying off the administration, they are not only allowing bad policies to continue, but not giving the president the backing he needs to follow his instincts.

For the families of Sgt. 1st Class Javier J. Gutierrez and Sgt. 1st Class Antonio R. Rodriguez, isn’t it time we all apply John Kerry’s famous question: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” (For more from the author of “U.S. Special Forces Soldiers Killed in Ambush Set by Our Afghan Army ‘Friends’” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Claim: White House Reportedly Identified, Will Remove ‘Anonymous’ Resistance Official

The anonymous member of the Trump administration who penned a scathing anti-Trump op-ed in the New York Times, asserted his or her position as a member of the “resistance,” and went on to write a tell-all book has been pinpointed by the administration and will be removed, former U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova claimed on Monday.

DiGenova, who is not a Trump administration official, claims that a senior government official informed him that the Trump administration has identified the senior official behind the infamous “resistance” op-ed, which was published in the Times in 2018.

“Remember that article in the New York Times by ‘Anonymous,’ which was written allegedly by someone inside the administration? I am told that soon there will be someone else leaving the White House who wrote that article,” he told WMAL’s Mornings on the Mall host Vince Coglianese on Monday.

“Apparently, they have identified ‘Anonymous,’ and we were told that — Victoria and I were at a dinner with a senior government official last week — and were told that by this person. They have, in fact, identified ‘Anonymous.’”

DiGenova would not say if the official was part of the National Security Council (NSC), telling Coglianese, “I don’t want to give out too much information and reveal the source of the information.” (Read more from “Claim: White House Reportedly Identified, Will Remove ‘Anonymous’ Resistance Official” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WATCH: AG Barr Announces ‘Significant Escalation’ to Shut Down Sanctuary Cities

US Attorney General William Barr announced that the Department of Justice would be escalating their efforts to combat the policies of “sanctuary cities” to aid illegal aliens.

“The department is filing a complaint against the State of New Jersey seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against its laws that forbid state and local law enforcement from sharing vital information about criminal aliens with DHS,” Barr said, according to Fox News.

Barr went on to say the legal action against New Jersey was just one of a number of lawsuits against municipalities that employ “sanctuary city” policies to undermine the enforcement of federal immigration law.

“We are filing a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against King County, Washington, for the policy,” Barr explained, “that forbids DHS from deporting aliens from the United States using King County International Airport.”

(Read more from “AG Barr Announces ‘Significant Escalation’ to Shut Down Sanctuary Cities” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Venezuelan Americans Warn U.S. Voters in Powerful Video: Bernie Is Your Enemy

While some members of the media go to great lengths to argue that U.S. democratic socialists are not the same as Latin American socialists, many Venezuelan-Americans see little difference between the two.

Hundreds of Venezuelan ex-pats that gathered for a “Venezuela Freedom Rally” in Washington, D.C. had a warning for their fellow Americans: Don’t do it!

According to Campus Reform which covered the event, attendees were deeply troubled that so many Americans view socialism favorably and that a self-described “democratic socialist” has a credible chance of becoming the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee in 2020. . .

“Bernie Sanders is your enemy. Do not ever, ever get involved with this individual or any of the other socialists,” said one man who added: “You do not ever want anyone even close to socialism to come to this country.” . . .

Meanwhile, a young woman said that Americans should not fool themselves into believing that socialism cannot happen in the United States. “We also thought that this could never happen in our country. We had a balance of powers. We had democracy and we elected our leaders,” she said while draped in a Venezuelan flag.

(Read more from “Venezuelan Americans Warn U.S. Voters in Powerful Video: Bernie Is Your Enemy” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Professor Claims the Way to Fight Climate Change Is to Let Human Race Become Instinct

A Cambridge academic has proposed a radical new way to solve climate change – letting humanity become extinct.

Patricia MacCormack, a professor of continental philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University, has just released her new book The Ahuman Manifesto, which will officially be launched in Cambridge. . .

The book argues that due to the damage done to other living creatures on Earth, we should start gradually phasing out reproduction. But rather than offering a bleak look at the future of humanity, it has generated discussion due to its joyful and optimistic tone, as it sets out a positive view for the future of Earth – without mankind. . .

“The basic premise of the book is that we’re in the age of the Anthropocene, humanity has caused mass problems and one of them is creating this hierarchal world where white, male, heterosexual and able-bodied people are succeeding, and people of different races, genders, sexualities and those with disabilities are struggling to get that. . .

The central argument in The Ahuman Manifesto can be boiled down to this: mankind is already enslaved to the point of “zombiedom” by capitalism, and because of the damage this has caused, phasing out reproduction is the only way to repair the damage done to the world. (Read more from “Professor Claims the Way to Fight Climate Change Is to Let Human Race Become Instinct” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Two Medal of Honor Recipients Sound off on Alexander Vindman

On Sunday, Medal of Honor recipient Leroy Petry appeared on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends,” where he discussed Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who was escorted out of the White House on Friday. . .

“I respect Donald Trump’s actions on escorting [Vindman] out of the White House, because he, as a team player, he should have brought it up through the chain of command, and then blown the whistle if it didn’t get approved,” Perry told “Fox & Friends” on Sunday. . .

Petry continued regarding Vindman, claiming he was dubbed a “chow thief” back at Ranger School and heard he “couldn’t be trusted.” . . .

Medal of Honor recipient David Bellavia added some commentary on Vindman, too. . .

Vindman is a very controversial guy, depending on your politics; you either love him or you hate him. Joe Biden gave him a standing ovation. Some people see him as just an emotional kid who just is so partisan and blinded by his politics that he jumped the chain of command and was blinded by being a part of history and politics are more important than his oath.

(Read more from “Two Medal of Honor Recipients Sound off on Alexander Vindman” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE