Opinion: ‘If Democrats and the Left’ Kill Electoral College, ‘We Can Never Win Another Election’

Charlie Kirk, founder and executive director of Turning Point USA, explained a political push from Democrats and the broader left to circumvent the electoral college and determine presidential elections via the popular vote. He offered his analysis in a Tuesday interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily with host Alex Marlow.

The National Popular Vote is a campaign to evade the electoral college via an interstate compact wherein partner states — via their own statewide legislation — agree to cast their electoral votes based on the national popular vote, regardless of how their own state’s citizens voted.

“Few people actually realize that Democrats and the left have done this in 15 states, already,” began Kirk. “This is called the National Popular Vote Compact — an interstate compact — where essentially states have agreed to send their electoral votes to the winner of the popular.” . . .

Kirk warned, “If Democrats and the left pull this off, forget about it. We’ll have a less than five percent chance of ever winning another election again. This is exactly what the Founding Fathers tried to prevent, which is the tyranny of the mob of the inner cities.”

“We are diverse country of different needs and wants and values, and having the sort of balance [and] representation the electoral college demands has made our elections so competitive,” Kirk continued. “This is a healthy thing for our republic.” (Read more from “Opinion: ‘If Democrats and the Left’ Kill Electoral College, ‘We Can Never Win Another Election'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Border Patrol Whistleblower Provides an Inside Look at America’s Broken Immigration System

By Townhall. For years, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Border Patrol have said their facilities are overwhelmed and the system is severely broken. Politicians in Washington, D.C. have debated the issue, but one thing they can’t debate is the cold hard facts. And the fact is we have people from around the world taking advantage of loopholes in our immigration system, a Border Patrol whistleblower told Townhall.

Central American caravan riders have overwhelmed the Border Patrol since last fall when they began coming to the United States en masse. Mexico established a system to help the U.S. deal with the people who were coming to America, allegedly seeking asylum. Those who wanted to seek asylum had to go through a port of entry, file the paperwork and then go back to Mexico to wait until their court date. Mexico even offered to provide humanitarian visas to those who couldn’t legally enter into the United States so they could stay in Mexico and work. But that’s not what these migrants wanted. They want a life in America. . .

And here’s where things get even more twisted. If an illegal alien comes up sick, agents are forced to take him or her to a nearby urgent care or hospital for treatment, exposing everyone in the community to the communicable disease. Border Patrol and ICE aren’t required to report said diseases to the Center for Disease Control so there’s absolutely no way for the CDC to accurately track where an outbreak began, the whistleblower explained. Not only that, but agents are getting sick themselves and they’re bringing these diseases home. They’re exposing their kids and family members to the diseases they’re being exposed to while on the job.

The whistleblower who spoke to me explained the general concern amongst agents tends to be the same: agents really aren’t on the border right now because they’re spending basically all of their time and resources processing people who ask to see immigration judges. The illegal aliens figured out our “catch and release” system so they’re coming in droves. Not having anyone along the border means we essentially have open borders. The drug cartels and terrorists are taking advantage of that fact. Agents are seeing more “exotics” – people from South Africa, Somalia, India and the Middle East – than they otherwise would have. It’s not just those from Central America, like Guatemala and Honduras. (Read more from “Border Patrol Whistleblower Provides an Inside Look at America’s Broken Immigration System” HERE)

_________________________________________________________

Border Control Creating New Position for Immigration Crisis

By The Daily Caller. The U.S. Border Patrol announced that it’s creating a new position specifically tailored to processing and caring for migrants who reach the southern border, allowing agents to refocus their work on enforcement.

The “Border Patrol Processing Coordinator” will assume certain responsibilities that have consumed the agency’s time as it deals with a surge of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, according to a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) press release on Tuesday. The new position is meant to bring relief to agents who have long complained that the humanitarian crisis has kept them from performing their main role at the border.

Coordinators are to be tasked with feeding, cleaning, transporting and other general tasks for illegal immigrants in Border Patrol custody. Migrants in need of medical care will be transported to hospitals by coordinators, who will also be assigned to watch over migrants as they receive care.

“I am committed to providing the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol the resources they need to accomplish their border security mission,” Carla Provost, Chief of the Border Patrol, said in a prepared statement on Tuesday. “Border Patrol Processing Coordinators will take on processing, transportation, and custody responsibilities, which will free up agents for critical law enforcement operations.” (Read more from “Border Control Creating New Position for Immigration Crisis” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Lurching to the Left on Crime Will Not Win Re-Election

Does President Trump believe that he will win re-election by exposing how radical Democrats have become since the Bill Clinton era, or by selling himself as to the Left of 1990s-era Democrats on crime? If he chooses the latter, shedding the law-and-order agenda he promised in 2016, it’s hard to comprehend the political calculus.

On Monday, President Trump tweeted, “Super Predator was the term associated with the 1994 Crime Bill that Sleepy Joe Biden was so heavily involved in passing. That was a dark period in American History, but has Sleepy Joe apologized? No!” A little over an hour later, he followed up by asserting, “Anyone associated with the 1994 Crime Bill will not have a chance of being elected. In particular, African Americans will not be able to vote for you. I, on the other hand, was responsible for Criminal Justice Reform, which had tremendous support, & helped fix the bad 1994 bill!”

Are we now the party of trying to out-left the Left and militate against one of the few bipartisan successes of our lifetime, which led to a huge decline in the homicide rate?

Defenders of the president will note that he is simply trolling Joe Biden in his usual style. But do conservatives win by trolling Democrats from the Left or by exposing their leftism? Do we win by repudiating their radicalism or validating it more aggressively than they do?

In reality, it used to be that Trump fully understood this issue.

Trump is correct. The sad reality is that violent crime is disproportionately committed by African-Americans. In 2017, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting, of the 11,883 homicide offenders whose race is known, a whopping 54 percent were black, 43 percent white, and three percent other. In 2012 (the last year the FBI broke down the race of those arrested for other offenses), African-Americans accounted for 32.9 percent of those arrested for rape, 55 percent of those arrested for robbery, and 34.1 percent of those arrested for aggravated assault.

Yet Trump was also correct when he asserted that African-Americans are disproportionately the victims of these crimes and are therefore hurt the most by weak-on-crime policies.

Indeed, in 2017, 1,272 more black people were killed (7,851) by homicide than white people (6,579). That is simply an astounding statistic given that black people compose just 13 percent of the population. In cases where the race of both the victim and offender were known, a staggering 88.4 percent of black homicide victims were murdered by black offenders.

Also, as Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald wrote in her must-read book, “The War on Cops,” “the statistics on the race of criminals as reported by crime victims match the arrest data.” She observes that dating back to 1978, “a study of robbery and aggravated assault in eight cities found parity between the race of assailants in victim reports and in arrests – a finding replicated many times, across a range of crimes.”

Why toss African-American crime victims overboard to placate the criminal leniency complex? They are most likely to be the victims of these proposals.

The prison population is plummeting and has been for a while, particularly among black people and younger folks entering the system. As Keith Humphreys, a noted psychiatry professor at Stanford University, observed in the Washington Post several years ago, data from the Bureau of Justice Statistic shows incarcerations of 18- and 19-year-olds has declined by 40 percent from 2003 to 2013. Last month, he noted the across-the-board decline in incarceration in recent years “with the black rate of decline outpacing that of whites.” According to Humphreys and co-author Richard Lane, “the African American male imprisonment rate has dropped by a third since its peak and is now at a level not seen since 1991. African American women’s rate of imprisonment has dropped 57 percent from its peak and is now at a 30-year low.”

Thus, the entire notion of the 1994 crime law inducing mass incarceration of blacks is refuted by the reality of the decline in black incarceration over much of the same period.

Sadly, crime is going up in many areas over recent years, and the drug trafficking is now driven by transnational gangs and cartels much more than by African-American criminals. Now is the worst time to become even more lenient in an already lenient system that is reluctant to lock people up, particularly if they are of a specific race.

Look no further than Baltimore to see the tragedy of pursuing racial talking points at the expense of good public policy and public safety. Back in the early 2000s, even arch-liberal Mayor Martin O’Malley understood the people wanted law and order, and he aggressively arrested criminals in the city. Since the city declared war on the cops, refused to lock up juveniles, and aggressively stigmatized incarceration of African-American criminals at all costs, things have changed. The homicide rate went from roughly 40 per 100,000 during O’Malley’s tenure to 57.8 in 2017, the highest rate in the nation and higher than that of El Salvador.

That is the legacy of the leniency complex that Trump should be against during his re-election campaign. At its core, we don’t have an incarceration problem in this country, nor do we have a “Jim Crow” justice system. We have a broken culture and family structure, widespread in but not exclusive to inner cities. It’s time to treat the ailment, not the symptoms, especially when the symptoms are “improving.” Unfortunately, black victims will be the most harmed by the dismantling of more aggressive policing, tougher sentencing, and more incarceration.

Being weak on crime hurts everyone, but disproportionately ravages African-American neighborhoods. Trump once understood this. (For more from the author of “Trump Lurching to the Left on Crime Will Not Win Re-Election” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Comey Defends The Russia Probe… And Proves Trump’s Point All In One OpEd

Former FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday penned an opinion piece in the Washington Post about the Russia probe and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings (or lack thereof). According to Comey, “the president is a liar who doesn’t care what damage he does to vital institutions,” which is why he felt the need to set the record straight. . .

The former FBI Director does everything in his power to discredit President Trump’s claims that he was a Clinton supporter…and it’s rich (emphasis mine):

As director, I was determined that the work would be done carefully, professionally and discreetly. We were just starting. If there was nothing to it, we didn’t want to smear Americans. If there was something to it, we didn’t want to let corrupt Americans know we were on to them. So, we kept it secret. That’s how the FBI approaches all counterintelligence cases.

And there’s the first problem with Trump’s whole “treason” narrative. If we were “deep state” Clinton loyalists bent on stopping him, why would we keep it secret? Why wouldn’t the much-maligned FBI supervisor Peter Strzok — the alleged kingpin of the “treasonous” plot to stop Trump — tell anyone? He was one of the very few people who knew what we were investigating.

We investigated. We didn’t gather information about the campaign’s strategy. We didn’t “spy” on anyone’s campaign. We investigated to see whether it was true that Americans associated with the campaign had taken the Russians up on any offer of help. By late October, the investigators thought they had probable cause to get a federal court order to conduct electronic surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser named Carter Page. Page was no longer with the campaign, but there was reason to believe he was acting as an agent of the Russian government. We asked a federal judge for permission to surveil him and then we did it, all without revealing our work, despite the fact that it was late October and a leak would have been very harmful to candidate Trump. Worst deep-state conspiracy ever.

(Read more from “Comey Defends the Russia Probe… And Proves Trump’s Point All in One OpEd” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Justice Thomas Explains the Horrible Historic Connection Between Abortion and Eugenics

Tuesday morning, the Supreme court issued two orders on pro-life laws in Indiana.

First, the court upheld a Hoosier State requirement that the remains of aborted children be buried or cremated with dignity — rather than disposed of alongside hazardous medical waste.

But on the question of whether or not states can outlaw the practice of aborting children based on sex, race, or disability, the court decided to wait.

“Our opinion likewise expresses no view on the merits of the second question presented, i.e., whether Indiana may prohibit the knowing provision of sex-, race-, and disability selective abortions by abortion providers,” the court’s opinion reads. “We follow our ordinary practice of denying petitions insofar as they raise legal issues that have not been considered by additional Courts of Appeals.”

One of the factors determining whether or not the Supreme Court will take up a case is “ripeness,” or whether or not the legal questions of a case have fully developed into a controversy needing resolution by the court.

Indiana’s legal code makes it illegal for a person to perform an abortion “if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because of the race, color, national origin, or ancestry of the fetus.” State law also prevents abortions motivated by selecting the baby’s sex, a Down syndrome diagnosis, or a diagnosis of “any other disability.” Currently, the statute has only been ruled on by one federal appeals court.

But while he agreed with his colleagues’ decision to not hear the case for the time being, Justice Clarence Thomas did not mince words in his description of what will be at stake when the court eventually does.

“The Court’s decision to allow further percolation should not be interpreted as agreement with the decisions below,” Thomas explains at the beginning of his concurrence. “Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.”

Thomas gave the horrible history of the relationship between abortion and eugenics during the early 20th century.

“The use of abortion to achieve eugenic goals is not merely hypothetical,” the concurrence says. “The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth-control movement. That movement developed alongside the American eugenics movement.”

Thomas then mentioned party to the case Planned Parenthood and its founder — Margaret Sanger — by name.

“And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause. She emphasized and embraced the notion that birth control ‘opens the way to the eugenist.’”

He explained that her ideas laid the intellectual foundation for other eugenic-minded abortion supporters.

“Whereas Sanger believed that birth control could prevent ‘unfit’ people from reproducing, abortion can prevent them from being born in the first place,” Thomas explained. “Many eugenicists therefore supported legalizing abortion, and abortion advocates — including future Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher — endorsed the use of abortion for eugenic reasons.”

Thomas’ sources are listed in the footnotes of the opinion.

“Given the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation, the Court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s,” Thomas concluded. “But because further percolation may assist our review of this issue of first impression, I join the Court in declining to take up the issue now.” (For more from the author of “Justice Thomas Explains the Horrible Historic Connection Between Abortion and Eugenics” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

President Trump Needs to Pull John Brennan’s Security Clearance Immediately

President Obama’s CIA chief John Brennan, the serial propagandist, liar, and alleged habitual media leaker who is understood to be one of the primary movers behind the Trump-Russia hoax, has reportedly somehow maintained his top secret security clearance.

The New York Times reports: “The White House said a month later that the president was ordering the revocation of Mr. Brennan’s clearance. But the White House never followed through with the complex bureaucratic work it would have taken to strip the clearance, according to a person familiar with the process.”

The news may come as a shock to many, as the White House announced all the way back in August 2018 that it had revoked Brennan’s security clearance.

Conservatives on Twitter were caught by surprise that the White House reportedly did not follow through with the order.

The former CIA chief’s clearance was set to be revoked after he became a high-profile media and public figure and routinely fashioned himself as a leader of the anti-Trump resistance, breaking with the tradition of former intelligence chiefs staying out of politics.

Not only did Brennan not stay out of politics, he joined NBC as an on-air contributor and routinely, baselessly accused President Trump of colluding with Russia and committing treason against the United States.

Brennan seems to be consumed with his anti-Trump obsession. Whether he’s on the air, writing in print media, or tweeting, the Obama-era spy chief is always targeting and spewing negativity about the sitting president.

That’s not all. It would be fine — from a national security standpoint — if Brennan simply stuck to rhetorical barbs. But his campaign to undermine the president has become an unjust, vicious, concerted effort to remove him from office by any means possible

Brennan has used his platform to imply that his access to the nation’s secrets means that he knows about unrevealed damaging information about the president. Although he has never come up with any substantive information, Brennan’s campaign has harmed the national security interests of the United States to the advantage of our adversaries.

Brennan’s campaign seemingly continues unabated. Stories published in both the New York Times and the Washington Post last week offered incredible insight into Brennan’s internal thought processes.

Discussing a supposed secretive source known only to the CIA, the New York Times reported: “John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director under Mr. Obama, would bring reports from the source directly to the White House.”

Reporting on the origins of the Trump-Russia dossier, the Washington Post cited a “former senior CIA official” claiming that the dossier was not included in a controversial Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that helped launch the Mueller probe. In 2017, Brennan testified that he was one of only three people responsible (and the only person at the CIA) — along with former NSA Director Mike Rogers and FBI Director James Comey — for the intelligence report.

Now, Brennan has gone to Congress to privately brief Capitol Hill Democrats on the situation in Iran. He was joined by former Obama administration official Wendy Sherman, who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal. Brennan was a longtime advocate for the Iran nuclear deal, which President Trump withdrew from. This comes as Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein has met with top Iranian regime officials, in what appears to be an effort to circumvent the president’s policies.

For the sake of protecting the administration’s agenda and America’s national security as a whole, John Brennan must have his security clearance revoked. As his public behavior had made clear, the mutinous propagandist in Brennan cannot be trusted with such a privilege. The nation’s secrets should not be accessible to the hyper-political, disgraced former CIA leader. (For more from the author of “President Trump Needs to Pull John Brennan’s Security Clearance Immediately” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Supporter Confronts Justin Amash for Endorsing Impeachment, and It Gets Very Heated

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) was confronted by a Trump supporter at his town hall meeting who wanted answers after the Republican Libertarian called for the impeachment of President Donald Trump. . .

“This is what Mueller and the Democrats have all tried to, and the deep state, the bureaucrats, I don’t know if you’ve ever dealt with a bureaucrat, but it’s just mind-boggling that we have to deal with them,” the woman said, “I have a lot of experience.”

“How come you’ve become a Democrat when we voted for you as a Republican because you just drink the same Kool-Aid as all the Democrats?” she asked. . .

“First I have one of the most constitutionally conservative and fiscally conservative voting records in the whole Congress,” Amash answered to great applause.

“And in fact, I have voted to spend less than any member of Congress in either chamber since I’ve been in Congress,” he explained,” so I’ve voted for less spending. When I got elected as part of the Tea Party movement, people cared about limited government, they cared about fiscal conservatism, making sure that our government wasn’t spending too much. (Read more from “Trump Supporter Confronts Justin Amash for Endorsing Impeachment, and It Gets Very Heated” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Obama Administration’s Actions Against Press Worse Than Previously Known

By Daily Wire. On Thursday, the Columbia Journalism Review reported on the results of a Freedom of Information Act request for documents related to the Obama Justice Department’s attempts to crack down on leaks to reporters which reveal that the Obama administration’s actions against the press “were broader than previously known.”

The report — which begins by warning against the threat the Trump administration poses to the freedom of the press — presents an alarming picture of the previous administration’s efforts to surveil the press and track down sources of leaks (h/t Ed Morrissey). . .

“In 2013, the Justice Department launched a brazen attack on press freedom, issuing sweeping subpoenas for the phone records of the Associated Press and several of its reporters and editors as part of a leak investigation,” the authors report. While those subpoenas have long been understood as “a massive intrusion into newsgathering operations,” they note, the recently unearthed 2014 report reveals that the subpoenas targeting AP “told only part of the story.”

The Office of Professional Responsibility’s report on the Obama Justice Department’s subpoenas of AP phone records reveals that “the DOJ’s actions against the AP were broader than previously known, and that the DOJ considered subpoenaing the phone records of other news organizations, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and ABC News,” the authors explain. The report also reveals “how narrowly the DOJ interprets the Media Guidelines, the agency’s internal rules for obtaining reporters’ data.” (Read more from “Obama Administration’s Actions Against Press Worse Than Previously Known” HERE)

________________________________________________________

Report Reveals New Details About DOJ’s Seizing of AP Phone Records

By Columbia Journalism Review. A new report obtained by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the Freedom of the Press Foundation (where the authors work) under the Freedom of Information Act shows that the DOJ’s actions against the AP were broader than previously known, and that the DOJ considered subpoenaing the phone records of other news organizations, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and ABC News. Moreover, they reveal how narrowly the DOJ interprets the Media Guidelines, the agency’s internal rules for obtaining reporters’ data.

In May 2012, the AP published several articles about a successful CIA operation that thwarted a Yemen-based bomb plot. These articles contained classified information and their publication prompted a leak investigation. In February 2013, then Deputy Attorney General James Cole approved a request by DOJ attorneys to subpoena the telephone records of the AP as part of this investigation. . .

The report, which was submitted to then–Attorney General Eric Holder in 2013, reveals that the leak probe was broader than previously understood. It reveals, for example, that, while the Justice Department obtained telephone toll records for 21 telephone numbers, the agency in fact issued “30 subpoenas to obtain telephone toll records for 30 unique telephone numbers.” The report reveals that those 30 subpoenas were intended to target seven reporters and editors, and covered a period of six weeks spanning April 1, 2012 to May 10, 2012.

The report also shows that, at least at one stage of their investigation, Justice Department attorneys considered subpoenaing the records of The Washington Post, The New York Times, and ABC News. What’s more, the report strongly suggests that the attorneys went so far as to obtain “telephone numbers and other contact information” for reporters and editors at those organizations who had worked on articles about the Yemen bomb plot. The report records, however, that the attorneys ultimately decided against issuing additional subpoenas. (Read more from “Report Reveals New Details About DOJ’s Seizing of AP Phone Records” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Disabled Girl Who Was Horribly Shamed Online by Abortion Activists Dies ‘After Living Life to the Fullest’

The Cornelius girl whose facial deformity made her both a target of social media trolls and a symbol of public acceptance of people with disabilities has died, her mother said.

A Twitter user early last year included a photo of Sophia Weaver in a tweet “as the poster child to abort bc she’s disabled.” Sophia’s mother, Natalie Weaver, complained and the social media platform eventually apologized and clarified its rules on hate speech.

Sophia had Rett syndrome, a rare neurological disorder that occurs mostly in girls and affects the abilities to speak, walk, eat and breathe, the Associated Press has reported. . .

Weaver posted an update early Friday: “‪Our #SweetSophia left this earth last night as she spent every day of her life, surrounded by love & adoration…. Once we pull ourselves from this heart shattering pain we will continue to help others in her memory.” . . .

Weaver had advocated for her daughter, and for the public acceptance of other children with disabilities and facial deformities, well before the Twitter incident. She’s co-founder of the nonprofit Advocates for Medically Fragile Kids NC. (Read more from “Disabled Girl Who Was Horribly Shamed Online by Abortion Activists Dies ‘After Living Life to the Fullest'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Left-Wing Pastor Denounces ‘Straight White Men’ During Christian College Commencement Prayer — and Gets Cheers from Crowd

A left-wing pastor from a progressive church denounced “straight white men” in his commencement benediction last weekend at Baylor University, a private Christian college in Waco, Texas.

Dan Freemyer — pastor of missional engagement at Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, which calls itself “fully affirming of women in lay and professional ministry roles and fully inclusive of LGBTQ+ persons” — got in a mention of the graduates’ “privileges” during his prayer Saturday morning along with an environmental appeal before turning his attention to skin color.

“And God, give them the moral imagination to reject the old keys that we are trying to give them to a planet that we’re poisoning by running it on fossil fuels and misplaced priorities,” he prayed. “A planet with too many straight white men like me behind the steering wheel while others have been expected to sit quietly at the back of the bus.” . . .

Rod Dreher, writing for the American Conservative, called Freemyer’s benediction “appalling” before asking, “I wonder how many straight white men are Baylor donors? I wonder how many straight white male and female parents of high school students will understand the meaning of this signal, and look elsewhere for their children’s Christian college education?” (Read more from “Left-Wing Pastor Denounces ‘Straight White Men’ During Christian College Commencement Prayer — and Gets Cheers from Crowd” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE