Wuhan Is the Final Straw: The World Needs to Divest From China; China Reportedly in Talks With Pakistani Terror Groups

/0 Comments/in , /by

By The Hill. The global influence of the Chinese Communist Party both economically and militarily is one of the most concerning stories so far in the 21st century. Despite years of human rights abuses, currency manipulation, dishonest trade practices, and threats to democracy, the Chinese communist government has been able to grow its economy and influence throughout the world at a breathtaking pace.

The current COVID-19 pandemic, and the global economic upheaval it has created, has exposed China as the reckless, dishonest member of the global community that many of us knew them to be. The outbreak in Wuhan and the communist government’s efforts to keep this quiet have led to a global catastrophe. National security advisor Robert O’Brien suggested that this cover up delayed the global response to COVID-19 by two months while the Chinese government allowed its own people to continue traveling to Wuhan and abroad, infecting the world. . .

Although it may be difficult to identify positives from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is plausible to suggest a global awakening to China’s insidious behavior is underway. It is now time for the global community to begin divesting in the China relationship. This is the only thing that will pressure China to operate honestly and abide by the same rules the rest of the world operates by.

The world needs to follow the examples of nations like Australia who has joined the United States in calling for an independent international investigation of China’s handling of COVID-19 and the WHO response. In typical fashion China has threatened Australia with economic sanctions. The Aussies have not relented, however. Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne has labeled these threats “economic coercion,” setting an example for the world to see. . .

In relation to COVID-19, nations should consider economic sanctions on Chinese officials responsible for this cover up and the Chinese companies which have benefitted. Additionally, nations, including the United States, should consider bringing China to the International Court of Justice for their violation of the 2005 International Health Regulations. China’s deception, cover-up, and underreporting of the disease is a clear violation of an agreement signed by nearly 200 states, including China and the United States. (Read more from “Wuhan Is the Final Straw: The World Needs to Divest From China” HERE)

_____________________________________________________

China Reportedly in Talks With Pakistani Terror Groups

By India Today. At a time when the Indian and Chinese militaries continue to engage in talks to defuse the tension in Ladakh region, sources say Pakistan has started moving troops along the Gilgit-Baltistan area and the Chinese army is holding talks with terror organisation Al Badr to incite violence in Jammu and Kashmir.

According to sources, Pakistan has moved almost 20,000 additional troops in the northern Ladakh region to match Chinese deployments.

Sources have indicated that Pakistan is looking at an opportunity to open a two-front attack on India. Meanwhile, there were a series of meetings between the Indian Army and intelligence officials to discuss the looming threat.

Sources have said Pakistan’s ISI, egged on by the Chinese, has further increased the sending of battle-hardened terrorists or even planning BAT operations in India. (Read more from “China Reportedly in Talks With Pakistani Terror Groups” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Supreme Court Hands Huge Victory to Families on School Choice

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a 5-4 decision Tuesday, the Supreme Court held that families have a right to seek the best educational opportunities for their children, by preventing states from blocking the participation of religiously affiliated schools in state school choice programs.

In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the court ruled that the application of a “no-aid” provision in Montana’s Constitution violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, since it barred state tax credit scholarships from being used at private religious schools.

In a huge win for families, the high court held that states cannot apply the no-aid provision to discriminate against religious schools by excluding them from private school choice programs.

In 2002, the court’s ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris held that the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution did not block parents from choosing schools that are the best fit for their children, including religious schools.

Tuesday’s decision in Espinoza removed the largest state constitutional obstacle by holding that so-called Blaine Amendments cannot be used to deny choice to parents.

Under the U.S. Constitution, states no longer may prevent parents from choosing religious schools if they are participating in a school choice program.

“A state need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools simply because they are religious,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion of the court in Espinoza.

This decision struck a blow to the notoriously anti-Catholic Blaine Amendment in Montana’s Constitution that sanctioned explicit discrimination against religious schools in funding. Montana’s discrimination hurt families who have a wide variety of values and preferences when it comes to their children’s education.

As the Supreme Court had previously noted, Blaine Amendments have an “ignoble” history. The amendments are named after Sen. James G. Blaine of Maine, who in 1875 sought a federal constitutional prohibition of aid to “sectarian” schools.

“Consideration of the amendment arose at a time of pervasive hostility to the Catholic Church and to Catholics in general, and it was an open secret that sectarian was code for Catholic,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court’s Mitchell v. Helms decision in 2000.

As Jarrett Stepman and one of us, Lindsey Burke, wrote previously in the Journal of School Choice:

Catholics sought to establish their own schools, and proposed that funding should follow, as it had to the common school (proto-public schools).

Supporters of the common school movement perceived a threat to its mission in such proposals. … Against this backdrop, Blaine [Amendments] sought to prevent aid to Catholic schooling as part of a wider reaction to increased Catholic immigration.

Blaine’s effort to amend the U.S. Constitution failed in 1875, but his effort still served as a major impediment to school choice, continuing to thwart modern-day school choice programs in the 21st century.

That’s because 37 states went on to adopt similar amendments, sometimes referred to as “baby Blaine Amendments.” Prior to today’s ruling, in states such as Montana, many of these state Blaine Amendments and similar “compelled support” clauses restricted or outright prohibited the use of taxpayer funds at private religious schools.

This timeline shows when states adopted Blaine Amendments and similar “compelled support” clauses.

The Supreme Court made it clear Tuesday that the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution prohibits discrimination against religious schools on the basis of their religious status—a status that provides families with more education options that best meet the needs of their children.

The high court said that if states create a publicly available benefit, such as a scholarship program, they must allow religious schools to participate. The states that have Blaine Amendments in place are now prohibited from excluding religious school options.

In Mitchell v. Helms, Thomas wrote of Blaine Amendments: “This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.” On Tuesday, the Supreme Court’s decision in Espinoza took us one step closer to achieving that goal.

Now is the time for states to cast aside these 19th-century rules rooted in prejudice that unfairly punish religious families, students, and schools. The Constitution requires states to provide a level playing field for religious and secular education.

The legal impediment to school choice programs is now gone, and it’s up to state legislatures to move forward advancing education choice.

The court made it clear that policymakers across the country now have the power to enact robust school choice programs. They should do just that. (For more from the author of “Supreme Court Hands Huge Victory to Families on School Choice” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

New GOP Ad Issues Powerful Warning About Democrats Threatening American Culture

/1 Comment/in , /by

On Wednesday, the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) released a powerful new ad warning about vandals and rioters destroying a key monument in American culture — the presidents on Mount Rushmore. While the vandals are not likely to actually deface Mount Rushmore anytime soon, their iconoclastic movement has already targeted each of the four presidents on the monument — George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt.

The ad, “Erasing History,” shows the presidents on Mount Rushmore disappearing, one by one, as vandals tarnish monuments to each of those presidents, and as “America the Beautiful” plays somberly in the background. The ad appears to be a tribute to an America not just under siege but actively being dismantled by roving bands of rioters set on damning the entire American project as an exercise in oppression.

“‘Erasing History’ is a poignant reminder about the dangers of the current ‘cancel culture,’ the threat to our nation and the rule of law posed by anarchists and lawless liberals,” RAGA Executive Director Adam Piper said in a statement. “The 2020 election will be a referendum on law and order – and the choice is clear.”

“Americans who want to protect their freedom, history, and the rule of law will vote for Republican AGs,” Piper argued, claiming that Republican attorneys general stand in “stark contrast to Democrats, complicit with today’s cancel culture and various attempts to erase Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln from our history books.”

(Read more from “New GOP Ad Issues Powerful Warning About Democrats Threatening American Culture” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Sioux President Calls for Mount Rushmore to Be ‘Removed’

/0 Comments/in , /by

As President Trump prepares to visit Mount Rushmore next week, a South Dakota tribal president is preparing a memo of disapproval.

Oglala Sioux President Julian Bear Runner says the president failed to consult with tribal leaders about the visit to the Black Hills, which the Sioux consider part of their Great Sioux Reservation, land that was never ceded to the United States. Bear Runner said Trump’s visit requited government-to-government consultation between the tribes and the federal government.

And one other thing: Bear Runner thinks Mount Rushmore should come down.

“I don’t believe it should be blown up, because it would cause more damage to the land,” he said, noting that Indian artifacts could be damaged. But there are other methods to take down the monument that would have less environmental impact.

“I agree,” he said. “Removed but not blown up.” (Read more from “Sioux President Calls for Mount Rushmore to Be ‘Removed'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Arizona Goes After Gym That Refused to Shutdown

/0 Comments/in , /by

A luxury gym in Phoenix, Arizona, lost two liquor licenses after defying the order to shut down in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Life Time Fitness had two liquor licenses suspended by local officials after keeping their gym doors open.

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey issued an executive order shutting down movie theaters, gyms, bars and other businesses for 30 days on Monday. . .

“The Department took action against the liquor licenses of the two businesses as each presented one of a number of enticements to continue regular operations at Life Time Biltmore,” said John Cocca, the director of the Arizona Dept. of Liquor Licenses and Control.

A spokesman for the governor’s office said that a business could face up to a $2,500 fine for non-compliance with the executive order. (Read more from “Arizona Goes After Gym That Refused to Shutdown” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WATCH: Harvard Grad Says She’ll ‘Stab’ Anyone Who Says ‘All Lives Matter’

/1 Comment/in , /by

A recent Harvard University graduate claims she is getting death threats over a TikTok video she made in which she threatened to stab anyone who tells her that “all lives matter.”

Claira Janover, who graduated in May with a degree in government and psychology, went viral after posting a short clip in which she attacked anyone with “the nerve, the sheer entitled Caucasity to say, ‘all lives matter.’”

“I’ma stab you,” the Connecticut native said, zooming in close on her face.

“I’ma stab you, and while you’re struggling and bleeding out, I’ma show you my paper cut and say, ‘My cut matters, too,’” she added.

Ann Coulter was one of those who shared the clip, calling Janover an “Asian Karen,” while many others called for the student’s arrest.

(Read more from “WATCH: Harvard Grad Says She’ll ‘Stab’ Anyone Who Says ‘All Lives Matter'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

More Domestic Terrorism – Armed Black Lives Matter Terrorists Shoot SUV Driver (VIDEO)

/0 Comments/in , /by

The level of cultural Marxism within the media reports is even more significant than ever before. U.S. media are trying to protect the domestic terrorists. It is quite unnerving.

In Provo, Utah, a group of armed Black Lives Matter terrorists surrounded a vehicle at an intersection. The driver would not exit the vehicle to be beaten by the mob. One of the BLM activists pulled a gun and demanded the driver come out, when the driver refused the terrorist opened fire shooting the driver. The driver hits the gas and tries to escape, the terrorist fires through the rear window as another armed terrorist joins the fray from the opposite side of the street. WATCH:

According to local media, police are determining whether to charge the driver of the vehicle for not complying with the mob’s demand for the beating; thereby putting the other terrorists at risk. “It’s unclear if the driver of the SUV who was shot is facing any possible charge for driving through the protesters after being shot.”

Here’s an enhanced video of the incident:

UTAH – “Several protesters began crowding around the vehicle,” said John Geyerman, Provo Police deputy chief. “The male protester ran toward the SUV on the passenger side, pointed a handgun at the driver, and shot one round through the window. The driver who was struck by the bullet accelerated, trying to leave the situation. The same protester ran after the vehicle and fired a second shot that went through the rear passenger window.”

Officials said the same man who allegedly fired the shots into the SUV also approached another vehicle and broke the window with a handgun.

The driver was taken to Utah Valley Hospital.

Police are looking for the alleged shooter and are asking for anyone with videos or pictures of the incident, or any other information, to contact PPD at 801-852-6210. (link)

(For more from the author of “More Domestic Terrorism – Armed Black Lives Matter Terrorists Shoot SUV Driver” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

‘Good Judges’? Think Again: Trump Appointee Blocks Key Trump Immigration Policy

/0 Comments/in , /by

The same Trump-appointed judge who gave Jim Acosta a right to demand access to the White House in 2018 has now given 7.8 billion people the potential “right” to sue for entry into the country as for asylum, even when they purposefully pass over numerous other countries first. What’s next? Can I get standing in court to demand that Trump meet with me every Sunday morning to discuss my ideas? Why is it too much to ask that Republican-appointed judges understand the role of the judiciary, standing, fundamental rights, and sovereignty?

In another failure of the faux conservative legal establishment, Trump appointee Timothy Kelly ruled on Tuesday that Trump could not enforce his policy from last July requiring asylum-seekers to first apply in the first country they pass through before being eligible for asylum status in America. Shockingly, he did so even after the Supreme Court already stayed an injunction by a California judge against this rule.

It’s truly hard to overstate how radical this decision is. The entire definition of asylum is that you are seeking safety somewhere else because you are in danger in your own country. The fact that these people are cherry-picking the United States for their destination demonstrates that their claims are bogus.

Plus, the courts have ruled for hundreds of years that foreign nationals have no standing to sue for the right to come into this country. How then could there even be standing to hear such a case? Also, third-party advocacy groups, such as the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition of Washington, the Texas-based Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), and Human Rights First were named as plaintiffs. So, could conservative NGOs now become plaintiffs to sue on behalf of foreign nationals to block foreign policy? Can I sue the Pentagon for using our soldiers and taxpayer funding for Kabul urban renewal projects?

For most of our history, the courts were clear that private parties can’t bring lawsuits to protect imputed rights of parties not before the court. Even if we are going to countenance the recent deviation from that principle, the third-party standing should not be expanded to foreign nationals. In Warth v. Seldin (1975), the Supreme Court explained, “Without such limitations — closely related to Art. III concerns but essentially matters of judicial self-governance — the courts would be called upon to decide abstract questions of wide public significance even though other governmental institutions may be more competent to address the questions.” Nowhere is this more evident than in questions pertaining to international migration and border security during times of peril.

This is the first time I can remember a court messing with a foreign policy of the president. These agreements were hashed out in high-level diplomatic negotiations with Central American countries. This is exactly why the Supreme Court said long ago that the “exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty” and that “the right to do so stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation” [Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 1950]. It’s not just that the president has 1182(f) delegated authority to shut off all immigration, even asylum requests. It’s inherent in his Article II powers to govern foreign affairs and foreign commerce.

The court further punctuated this point in Kleindienst v. Mandel, (1972): “In accord with ancient principles of the international law of nation-states … the power to exclude aliens is inherent in sovereignty, necessary for maintaining normal international relations and defending the country against foreign encroachments and dangers — a power to be exercised exclusively by the political branches of government.”

This is why, even if the president didn’t fully abide by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in the way he promulgated this new policy, as Judge Kelly suggests, there is no way there can be valid standing or judicial jurisdiction to adjudicate the consequences of that policy in this context.

Moreover, 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(1) explicitly exempts a “foreign affairs function” from the APA. And for good reason. A president doesn’t have time to play games while national security is at stake. Border security and immigration policy sit at the nexus of foreign policy and national security. This is exactly why the Supreme Court said in Mathews v. Diaz (1976) that “decisions in these matters [immigration] may implicate our relations with foreign powers” and therefore, these “decisions are frequently of a character more appropriate to either the Legislature or the Executive than to the Judiciary.” In this case, these very policies were born out of bilateral and multilateral agreements with at least four countries.

Ironically, one of the problems we faced from the flood at our border in 2018-2019 was a health crisis overwhelming our hospitals with people coming here for care. Why is it that the courts believe elected officials can violate the Bill of Rights under the guise of combatting a public health crisis, but somehow foreign nationals can assert a right to enter even in the face of a health crisis?

The answer is that we have become strangers in our own land, and even Republican-appointed judges have bought into this inverted thinking that flips the Declaration of Independence and consent-based governance upside down. The lower courts, thanks to tacit greenlighting from the Supreme Court, have been creating rights for illegal aliens at breakneck speed. They have essentially abolished ICE.

Just this month, a federal judge vacated the deportation of an illegal alien with prior battery convictions who was arrested for rioting at a BLM event simply because he had DACA status! An illegal alien has no right to remain in the country even without a criminal conviction, but now that the courts have mandated Obama’s amnesty, at least temporarily, they are now staying deportations even of those with criminal records who are ineligible for the status under Obama’s system. The illegal alien has now violated the terms of his release and faces yet another court appearance next week.

Once again, we have Trump-appointed judges who not only decline to roll back existing bad decisions but will even add new insane principles to our body of case law that downright conflict with past Supreme Court precedent. Guess what: Judge Kelly is the same man who ruled in 2018 that political activist Jim Acosta had a right to a press badge to access the White House. This judge seems to be confused about fundamental rights, standing in court, and what exactly defines a judicial case or controversy.

Until we declare these court opinions null and void for violating separation of powers, we will never have a sovereign republic. But in order to do that, we need elected officials in the other branches of government who believe in the rule of law and the Constitution. That will not happen under this Republican Party and certainly not under its judicial appointments. (For more from the author of “‘Good Judges’? Think Again: Trump Appointee Blocks Key Trump Immigration Policy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Amid Rioting, Coronavirus Cases Spike Among Younger People

/0 Comments/in , /by

Surprise, surprise: Burned-out buildings and increased crime aren’t the only things left in Minneapolis in the wake of the massive rioting over the past few weeks. Now it appears that COVID-19 cases among those ages 20-29 unnaturally spiked right around mid-June, exactly when you would expect them to, given the mass gatherings of protesters and rioters that commenced about one to two weeks before. Where do peaceful, law-abiding Americans go to get their apology after the media promoted lockdown and then went to the other extreme of promoting mass gatherings and super-spreading events to fuel racial strife?

Even though roughly 80 percent of COVID-19 deaths in Minnesota occurred in senior care facilities, those in their 20s now account for more confirmed positive cases than any other age group, according to the Minnesota Department of Health.

But the more relevant point is the trend line. There appears to have been a massive spike in cases among those in their 20s right around mid-June. Those in their 20s consistently accounted for roughly 20 percent of all cases going back to the archived reports from May. Yet they now account for 59 percent of the new cases since June 25.

What is shocking and appalling is that the media and politicians are blaming states for gradually and cautiously reopening after the harsh and arbitrary lockdowns as the culprit behind the spike in more cases. MPR News is pinning the blame for the Minnesota spike on the bars. Yet even the most open states never sanctioned mass gatherings. Numerous studies have shown that super-spreader events are responsible for the lion’s share – perhaps 80 percent – of transmission in a country. That’s why Japan, which had a great outcome without a shutdown, was always careful to avoid mass gatherings.

Yet, somehow, we are to believe it’s the reopening of small businesses that is responsible for the spread, not roving and mobile mass gatherings all over the country.

Not only are uncontrolled mass gatherings more likely to spread the illness than small businesses, but the timing makes it clear they are the culprit for the spread in many places. Infection to hospitalization time seems to be about 11-14 days. The gradual reopening began in late April and early May in the southern states, while the rioting began in early June. While very few young people will get seriously ill, those who are older who catch it from them can get sicker. The increase in hospitalizations happened right around when we would expect it, in mid-June.

Obviously, the places we would expect to see the greatest effect are in the states where there was little herd immunity because the virus hadn’t spread much to begin with, which is the case in most southern states. New York City had large riots and protests, but it appears that the virus has already hit a brick wall after infecting and killing so many in NYC in March and April. The population density of the northeast made the virus spread very quickly long before the protests. But in other parts of the country, all bets are off.

Our government is now using its failure to protect us internally from domestic insurrection and externally from cross-border migration as a pretext to reinstitute lockdown. As I noted on Friday, much of the spike in serious cases at the border is the result of cross-border travel and migration that our government failed to shut down. Now we know that much of the spread of milder cases in the interior came from the mass rioting and protesting. The only things that should be shut down are downright encouraged, while we are forced to wear face diapers and our children can’t go to camp after being out of school for months.

We’ve learned something interesting over the past few weeks. People who rob, loot, maim, and burn don’t care about spreading a virus either. Who would have known? The sad thing is that the silent majority of law-abiding Americans are the ones getting blamed for the lawlessness of the mob and the mendacity of the governing elite. (For more from the author of “Amid Rioting, Coronavirus Cases Spike Among Younger People” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

CNN Pressures Brands to Join Facebook Ad Boycott

/0 Comments/in , /by

CNN is naming and shaming corporate brands that have yet to join the ad boycott against Facebook, spurred by an agitated political left that wants the platform to do more to crack down on constitutionally protected speech — especially that of President Donald Trump.

The anti-Trump broadcaster published an article on its website earlier today titled “These are the big brands that haven’t pulled ads from Facebook yet.”

CNN also reveals in its article that it reached out to all of the brands for comment, a commonly used tactic in the media aimed at pressuring companies to take action with the veiled threat of negative coverage.

The article admits that the boycott will likely not make much of a difference to Facebook’s bottom line, and also admits that most brands did not return CNN’s request for comment:

The data suggest the ongoing boycott may have a limited impact on Facebook’s bottom line, at least as it stands right now. Even if all 100 of Facebook’s biggest advertisers joined in, they would account for just 6% of the company’s annual ad revenue.

(Read more from “CNN Pressures Brands to Join Facebook Ad Boycott” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE