Roger Stone’s Dishonesty Might Save Him

/0 Comments/in , /by

Early this morning, a group of 29 heavily armed FBI officers carried out a pre-dawn raid to apprehend the foppish 66-year-old Republican political consultant Roger Stone at the request of special counsel Robert Mueller. At last our streets are safe, or at least they were before Stone was immediately released on $250,000 bond. CNN, apparently tipped off to the raid, lurked outside Stone’s Florida home to capture video of the arrest.

Perhaps Roger Stone appreciated the FBI’s cheap political stunt. No operative in recent memory has earned and encouraged a greater reputation for political dark arts than Stone. A longtime friend and political advisor to President Trump, Stone played his first dirty trick in grade school and boasts that he hasn’t stopped since. Here are just a handful of Roger Stone’s greatest hits:

Third Graders For Kennedy: Though he currently sports a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back, in 1960 eight-year-old Roger Stone supported John F. Kennedy for president. When his Connecticut grade school asked students to choose the next president, Stone recalls that he stood at the end of the cafeteria line and told every student that Richard Nixon wanted school on Saturdays. Kennedy won in a landslide. . .

Now Roger Stone stands accused of obstructing a congressional inquiry and of witness tampering. Mueller’s indictment alleges that Stone informed senior Trump campaign aides as early as June or July of 2016 that he knew WikiLeaks had obtained documents damaging to Hillary Clinton. By then, however, the hacked emails had already been released to the public. In August, Stone claimed to have been in contact with WikiLeaks; in September of 2017, he denied any direct contact with the organization.

WikiLeaks agrees with this latter characterization. “Stone is playing slovenly Democrat-aligned journalists like a fiddle, brilliantly inserting himself, as is his habit to raise his public profile and market his books,” according to a Wikileaks spokesman, who observed that Stone “was pushed out of the Trump team a long time ago for just this time of opportunism.” The most convincing evidence that Stone did not collude on behalf of the Trump campaign with any foreign actors is that he bragged about having done so. Roger Stone’s dishonesty may save him—perhaps his dirtiest trick yet. (Read more from “Roger Stone’s Dishonesty Might Save Him” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WATCH: Here’s What a Late-Term Abortion Procedure Actually Looks Like. It’s Horrifying.

/0 Comments/in , /by

This week, New York Senate Democrats passed the euphemistically-named Reproductive Health Act, legislation which allows abortion up to the moment of birth, loosens restrictions on who performs them, and removes the fatal procedure from the state’s criminal code.

The truth is, the reality of abortion is so gruesome that abortion activists rely heavily on euphemism and secrecy. For example, it’s been shown time and again that self-described “pro-choice” folks change their mind about abortion after they’re shown what the fatal procedure actually entails — and, no, it’s not remotely comparable to a “dentist appointment,” as we are commonly told by left-wing activists.

So how exactly is a late-term abortion carried out? What will it look like when abortionists in New York state kill the unborn from 25 weeks to birth? In short: infanticide.

Dr. Anthony Levatino, a practicing obstetrician-gynecologist who performed over 1,200 abortions before he became pro-life, explains the horrifying procedure in a video for pro-life organization Live Action.

“At this point, the baby is almost fully developed and viable, meaning he or she could survive outside the womb if the mother were to go into labor prematurely. Because the baby is so large and developed, the procedure takes three or four days to complete,” says Levatino (video below).

(Read more from “WATCH: Here’s What a Late-Term Abortion Procedure Actually Looks Like. It’s Horrifying.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Palestinians Renounce All U.S. Aid. They Forgot One Big Thing.

/0 Comments/in , /by

In what will surely be music to the ears of the pro-Israel communtiy, the Palestinian Authority announced this week its renouncing of all U.S. aid and financial assistance. . .

Because here is the kicker. As The Daily Wire’s Frank Camp reported, President Trump in March signed into law the Taylor Force Act — which actually already halted all American aid to the Palestinian Authority.

The Taylor Force Act demands that the Palestinian Authority ceases payment of “salaries to terrorists serving in Israeli prisons, as well as to the families of deceased terrorists, is an incentive to commit acts of terror.” The law is named after Taylor Force, a 29-year-old American who was stabbed to death in 2016 by a Palestinian man while in Tel Aviv.

The Palestinian Authority has a long history of rewarding terrorists and their families with monthly stipends, and lawmakers in the United States have long debated withholding funding to the PA until they officially denounce and discontinue the practice.

One major question, moving forward, will be how the “news” of a Palestinian rebuffing of (largely non-existent) U.S. aid will affect the Trump administration’s upcoming proposed peace plan for Israel and the Palestinian-Arabs. The Post reports that Jared Kushner will be taking the lead in promoting the thus-far unannounced plan, in advance of the 2020 presidential election. Many pro-Israel hawks, such as Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes, are already dreading Kushner’s proposed plan. (Read more from “Palestinians Renounce All U.S. Aid. They Forgot One Big Thing.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Students Thought the Shutdown Was Trump’s Fault…but More Information Changed Their Minds

/0 Comments/in , /by

George Mason University students were shocked that President Donald Trump attempted to make compromises with Democrats to get the border wall built, as shown on a video from CampusReform.org posted Friday.

Cabot Phillips, the media director for CampusReform, went to the campus recently to talk to students. He asked them who they blamed the government shutdown on. All of the students in the video said Trump. . .

Phillips then asked students if Democrats should consider Trump’s offer for a wall if he agreed to provide protections for DREAMers, put 800 million dollars into humanitarian aid and increase funding for immigration judges to tackle the backlog of immigration cases. All of the students agreed.

Phillips then revealed that Trump made those offers to Democrats, and the students were stunned that Democrats didn’t take the deal into consideration. Many of them uttered laughs of shock and disbelief when they heard the truth. . .

The video was published hours before President Trump announced from the White House that he was able to secure a deal that would temporarily end the government shutdown until Feb 15. (Read more from “Students Thought the Shutdown Was Trump’s Fault…but More Information Changed Their Minds” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Ted Cruz Shuts Down Dem Senator’s Anti-Wall Tirade

/0 Comments/in , /by

Things got a little heated on the Senate floor Thursday afternoon as the chamber prepared to vote on two contrasting plans to end the partial government shutdown (both of which ultimately failed).

It all began with remarks from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, making the case for passing a measure to pay members of the Coast Guard.

Sen. Michael Bennett, D-Colo., responded with a floor speech in which he likened Cruz’s concerns to “crocodile tears” and lambasted Republicans for partially shutting down the federal government over funding for what he called a “medieval wall.”

Here’s Bennet’s full tirade:

https://youtu.be/1LlCn-HZDuYSen. Ted Cruz, however, was not about to take Bennett’s rant lying down. He fired back with a passionate rebuttal, seizing on Bennet’s use of the word “medieval.”

“I find it amusing a new adjective has creeped in,” Cruz responded. “It’s medieval wall. “I don’t know if there’s something in there that has a moat and has catapults and they’re throwing burning tar. Medieval wall now.”

“It does raise the question,” Cruz continued. “If walls are medieval, why did the senator from Colorado and every other Democrat in 2013 vote for 350 miles of medieval wall? To the extent walls are medieval, they were presumably were medieval in 2013 just as much as they are now.”

For reference, Senate Democrats not only voted for physical border security, but also to axe chain migration and the visa lottery back in 2013.

But Cruz wasn’t finished. He went on to call out Bennet, who does not represent a border state, for taking to the Senate floor to lecture his colleagues “about what it’s like on the border and what works securing the border.”

You can watch Cruz’s rebuttal here. It starts just after the three-hour mark. (For more from the author of “Ted Cruz Shuts Down Dem Senator’s Anti-Wall Tirade” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

GOP Senators Introduce Bill to Relax Regulations on Firearms Suppressors

/0 Comments/in , /by

A handful of Republican senators are trying to make it easier for hunters and recreational shooters to get equipment to better protect their hearing, but don’t expect the anti-gun crowd to go along with it.

On Thursday, GOP Sens. Mike Lee, Utah, John Cornyn, Texas, Rand Paul, Ky., James Risch, Id., and Mike Crapo, Id., introduced the “Silencers Helping Us Save Hearing Act of 2019,” which would “ensure the elimination of all federal regulations of suppressors.”

“Suppressors can make shooting safer for the millions of hunters and sportsmen that exercise their constitutional right to use firearms every year,” reads a statement from Lee’s office. “The current process for obtaining a suppressor is far too expensive and burdensome. Our bill would remove these unnecessary federal regulations and make it easier for firearms users to protect themselves.”

Given that there aren’t 60 Republicans to prevent a filibuster on this and the House speaker’s gavel is currently held by the vehemently anti-gun Nancy Pelosi, this legislation realistically has less than a snowball’s chance of making it to the president’s desk during this session of Congress.

But bills like this also spark conversations and debates to move cultural needle on an issue. And there’s a lot of complete misinformation out there about suppressors.

Suppressors, colloquially referred to as “silencers,” are non-lethal gun accessories that lower the volume of a gunshot, which, the press release notes, goes from around the level of an airplane takeoff to that of a running chainsaw.

If it’s been said once, it’s been said a thousand times, the term “silencer” is a gross and widespread misnomer. Suppressors don’t silence guns at all. They simply suppress the sound; hence the term. Don’t believe everything you see in movies. These devices aren’t as good at creating the kind of muffled “pew pew” sound that an international spy would need to discreetly assassinate someone outside a European cafe in broad daylight as Hollywood and the anti-gun lobby might lead you to believe. But they’re great at mitigating hearing damage for hunters and sportsmen who shoot on a regular basis.

If you don’t believe that, here’s some video of suppressors at work.

Despite this reality, suppressors are regulated much in the same way that fully automatic machine guns and short-barreled shotguns are. This means that there’s an extensive, expensive, and bureaucratic process to get hold of one legally. That process is what this bill is trying to end. (For more from the author of “GOP Senators Introduce Bill to Relax Regulations on Firearms Suppressors” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Here’s a List of States That Permit Abortion up to Birth

/0 Comments/in , /by

Many have been upset recently by New York’s new permissive abortion law that allows abortion “within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient’s life or health.”

However, New York’s law is not as extreme as the policies in the following seven states that have no, or little, restrictions on abortion and allow abortion up until birth, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research and policy group.

The states with the most lenient abortion laws are Oregon, Vermont, Colorado, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia, where there are no major prohibitions on abortion.

As evident from Guttmacher’s overview, in these states there are no laws requiring that abortions must be performed by a licensed physician or that they must be performed at a hospital. There are no 20-week, 24-week, or even official viability prohibitions on abortion. . .

In Alaska, New Jersey, and New Mexico, abortions are allowed up until birth and the states fund “all or most medically necessary abortions,” however, the procedures must be performed by a licensed physician. New Jersey has the additional requirement that abortions must be performed in a hospital past 14 weeks. (Read more from “Here’s a List of States That Permit Abortion up to Birth” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Even Congress’ Research Arm Vouches for Trump’s Border Funding Authority

/0 Comments/in , /by

The political class, including many conservative insiders, will look at you with wild eyes if you suggest that president has the authority to either declare an emergency at our border or use defense funds for an operation that should be the highest priority of national defense. But Congress’ own research arm makes it clear that such delegated authority to the president has been the norm since our Founding.

While many have complained that the 1976 National Emergencies Act (NEA) is too broad, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) memo, which was first posted by the Daily Caller, makes it clear that that this act actually limited the president’s authority relative to what it was before:

By 1973, Congress had enacted over 470 statutes granting the President special authorities upon the declaration of a “national emergency,” but had imposed no substantive or procedural limitations on either the President’s discretion to declare an emergency or the duration of such emergencies. After a Special Committee of the Senate concluded in a 1973 report that the President’s crisis powers “confer[red] enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional process,” Congress enacted the NEA in 1976 to pare back the President’s emergency authorities.

But if you look at the text of the NEA, the only substantive burdens it placed on the president during such a declaration are to articulate which statue he is using, publish the proclamation in the federal register, and transmit to Congress all relevant regulations and expenditures under such declaration. It also forces the president to renew the declaration every year and authorizes Congress to disapprove of the declaration with a two-thirds vote in both houses. In other words, it mandated more transparency on the president relative to our prior history, but never imposed upon him legally enforceable conditions for determining whether the problem rises to the level of a national emergency.

To give a sense of how common the use of this power is, the CRS notes that “31 national emergencies declared pursuant to the NEA are in effect, with Presidents having renewed certain emergencies for decades.” They also cite an analysis from the Brennan Center for Justice that confirms “136 statutes provide the President with emergency authorities that he can invoke pursuant to the NEA.”

One of those authorities in effect today is the president’s power of blocking assets and prohibiting transactions with significant narcotics traffickers, which was put into effect in 1995 when the drug problem was a fraction of what it is today. Nobody can deny that the drug crisis is a national emergency, with tens of thousands of people dying every year from the drugs brought in by the cartels at our border.

I’ve already explained that upon a declaration of emergency, the president has the power to use unobligated defense funds to construct infrastructure when he deploys soldiers at our border and when that construction, in this case the wall, is “necessary to support such use of the armed forces.” It is very hard to read the statute as placing justiciable limits on this determination, and as such, any question of whether the wall is needed for a military operation is a political one to be debated in Congress and not a legal one to be debated in court. The CRS notes that it would be unprecedented for a court to second-guess the president’s determination of what is needed to support a military operation. But of course, we live in unprecedented times of judicial power.

But as the CRS makes clear, the president’s authority to construct fencing to counteract transnational organized crime and drug trafficking is unlimited and does not even require the declaration of a national emergency.

Another statute that authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assist civilian law enforcement with counterdrug activities may provide some authority for the construction of barriers along the border. 10 U.S.C. § 284 (Section 284) provides that the Secretary of Defense “may provide support for the counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime” of any law enforcement agency, including through the “construction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.” Use of Section 284 would not require a declaration of a national emergency under the NEA. However, the DOD’s Section 284 authority to construct fences appears to extend only to “drug smuggling corridors,” a condition that may limit where DOD could deploy fencing.

The drugs and the other criminal activity coming over the border are likely the most urgent aspect of this crisis, and the president would be well within his rights to declare an emergency over it. The president has already declared a public health emergency. Nonetheless, he doesn’t even need to declare a new crisis, which is why I believe he should go the § 284 route. There are other negative political implications about declaring a national emergency, which would be needed to trigger § 2808 of the NEA, that would elicit a lot of demagoguery from the media (such as the potential to use martial law). By focusing on his authority to use the Department of Defense to counter drugs and organized crime without a formal declaration of emergency, Trump will be taking the cleanest avenue, which is also the path that most accurately fits the reality at the border.

As I’ve noted before, I’m skeptical of the efficacy of a wall to stop lawfare-driven migration when the migrants don’t mind being apprehended and in fact want to meet a border agent and declare asylum. However, it is undeniable that border walls help to block out criminal activity and drug smuggling. Those with something to hide are certainly not going hang off a wall for 20 minutes when they are almost certain to get apprehended. They try to enter through the rural areas without fencing.

By plugging those holes, Trump will be fulfilling the quintessential intent of this statute. It is exactly in those “drug smuggling corridors” where we don’t have fencing and where cartels are moving in drugs while our agents are tied down with hundreds of bogus asylees surrendering themselves to them. Nobody can deny that the level of family members and drugs crossing, the latter enabled by the former, is worse than ever. As one border agent told CBS, “I’ve seen 6 different presidents in the time that I’ve been with the Border Patrol and this is the worst crisis that I’ve seen” and, “Operationally I can tell that you without a physical barrier at border patrol we have a very tough time succeeding.”

Last October, the DOJ designated MS-13, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG), Sinaloa Cartel, and Clan del Golfo as transnational crime organizations (TCOs). Now, those cartels are pouring meth into areas in Texas and Arizona.

It’s time for Trump to actually treat this like the emergency it is and at least begin with the authority he has under a non-emergency statute. Threatening to get what he wants without Pelosi is a great leverage point. As Trump said in “The Art of the Deal,” “The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead.” (For more from the author of “Even Congress’ Research Arm Vouches for Trump’s Border Funding Authority” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Here’s the Draft of Trump’s Order Declaring a National Emergency to Build the Border Wall

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By The Blaze. President Donald Trump is planning to declare a national emergency at the border and use the powers from such a declaration to order the construction of a border wall, according to a draft of the order published by CNN. . .

“The massive amount of aliens who unlawfully enter the United States each day is a direct threat to the safety and security of our nation and constitutes a national emergency,” reads the draft order.

“Now, therefore, I, Donald J. Trump, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C 1601, et seq.), hereby declare that a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States,” the draft says.

Critics of the president have warned that if he were to take such an action that it would likely be met with legal challenges. Even some Republicans have cautioned against using the emergency powers of the executive in this manner.

(Read more from “Here’s the Draft of Trump’s Order Declaring a National Emergency to Build the Border Wall” HERE)

___________________________________________

Trump Issues New Position on Border Wall as Congress Debates Deal to End Shutdown

By The Blaze. President Donald Trump signaled Thursday that he was willing to make a concession to Democrats on funding for his border wall in order to strike a deal and reopen the government.

The government has been partially shut down for 34 days, and is affecting about 800,000 federal employees directly.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders indicated that the president was willing to accept less than the $5.7 billion for border wall funding in a continuing resolution deal, as long as it contained a “down payment” for the wall.

Trump then addressed reporters on negotiations between Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to reopen the government on a continuing budget resolution.

“Well one of the ideas suggested is they open it,” Trump said, apparently referring to the government, “they pay a sort of a prorated down payment for the wall, which I think, people will agree, that you need.” (Read more from “Trump Issues New Position on Border Wall as Congress Debates Deal to End Shutdown” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Should Revisit 3 Executive Powers to Break the Border Impasse

/0 Comments/in , , /by

If we consent to the notion that the president is prohibited from following the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and his inherent executive authority to stop this invasion, then there’s nothing we can do, and we as may as well cede the presidency to Kamala Harris. But if the president is willing to use his lawful powers and more aggressively push back against lawless lower court opinions and their illegal universal injunctions, there is a lot he can do. By credibly threatening to use executive action based on lawful powers, the president can upend Pelosi’s leverage.

The first step is for the president to communicate his message directly to the American people. There is no way around that. This entire battle is one of messaging.

There is a reason Pelosi denied the president the platform of the State of the Union by taking the unprecedented step of disinviting him to speak before the House. She knows that for the president to speak in in the traditional presidential manner for a full hour, laying out the evils of open borders and the danger of her policies empowering the cartels, will reframe the debate over this issue. Yet by disinviting Trump, Pelosi gave him an even bigger platform … if Trump is willing to use it.

To that end, the president should reconsider his decision to scuttle the State of the Union and deliver it at a venue on the border flanked by law enforcement and Angel Families. He should use imagery to depict the severity of the problem caused by Pelosi’s preferred immigration policies and that this has gone on long enough. This speech, because of its unique circumstances, would get more viewers and look better for the president than anything he could have done in the House chamber. In some ways, it would be the most dramatic use of the bully pulpit ever.

After Trump shows how severe the problem of illegal immigration is, he should lay out the following strategy, threats, and demands.

Threaten executive action

As long as Trump makes it clear that he cannot do anything to stop the invasion without Pelosi caving, she will not cave. But the minute he makes it clear that he will act unilaterally anyway, it will change the dynamic. Accordingly, Trump needs to make it clear that the difference between his and Obama’s use of executive action boils down to the Constitution and our existing statutes. Obama violated them in order to subvert sovereignty; Trump will follow the INA in order to preserve sovereignty and national security. He should then promise to revisit three ideas he seemingly has backed away from: ending the illegal DACA amnesty, shutting off all border migration, and using a military buildup to construct border infrastructure.

End DACA

How can a district judge tell the president he must continue Obama’s illegal amnesty? Trump needs to tell the American people that statute tells him these people must be deported, while a district judge, forum-shopped by the Left, says otherwise. He must follow statute. Nobody can challenge his use of executive action when that action itself is a mere reversal of Obama’s unprecedented action. He should explain the illegality of these rulings based on statute, rules of standing, and the fiction of universal injunctions.

Remember, the Judge William Alsup said very clearly that he was not saying DACA “could not be rescinded as an exercise of Executive Branch discretion,” he just disagreed with the way in which Trump got rid of it. While the judge was still off his rocker, nothing is stopping Trump from ending DACA now.

Trump can’t have it both ways. He can’t treat DACA as an important negotiation tactic for amnesty but then agree to the legal premise that he must do it and the political premise that it’s “the right thing to do.” He needs to give Democrats the impression that he will get rid of it. Right now, Democrats have no reason to deal with Trump because they are getting a permanent de facto extension of non-immigrant visas for those amnesty recipients indefinitely. Thus, they will wait Trump out for an even better deal on a more expansive amnesty. But if Trump threatens to take from them what they already think they have in the bag, it will change the negotiations.

Shut down all border migration

Nobody can ever credibly argue that a president lacks inherent executive authority as well as delegated authority to shut down all migration at our border, no matter how a judge wants to erroneously create loopholes in asylum. Article II powers over foreign commerce and INA 212(f) override all immigration, including legitimate immigration programs. This power has never been challenged, and indeed, the Supreme Court just upheld it last year. For a single district judge, Jon Tigar, to come along and give standing to random political groups to sue for caravan invaders outside our country is beyond laughable, and Trump needs to make that judge and his capricious rationale famous in his speech. He must build the case that no district judge can put an injunction on the power to control who crosses our border.

Threaten a military buildup

You know what we need more than a partial border wall, at least in the short term? A serious military operation at our border. If we can’t understand the threat the cartels pose to our nation and the cost in terms of thousands of homicides, drugs, gangs, and financial burdens, we have no business being a sovereign nation. If a president can deploy troops in 140 countries without authorization from Congress, then you better believe a president can repel an invasion when cartels are on our soil directing their operations. Even Joe Biden called for such a military operation decades ago when the cartels weren’t nearly as powerful.

It’s time for Trump to announce that the days of the evil cartels hurting Americans and Mexicans are over, and he will turn our military on them. Just the threat of doing so will shake up the cartels beyond belief. And once he beefs up the military presence, it’s much easier for him to use DOD funding to build infrastructure.

Make Democrats take tough votes

Once Trump asserts the threat to employ lawful and thoughtful executive action to stop the border invasion, he should then lay out a series of demands for Democrats covering all aspects of illegal immigration. He should call upon McConnell to make Democrats take a series of tough votes that will now be backed by the threat of executive action regardless of what they do in Congress.

Here’s how the strategy would work:

Step 1: Pay our agents

The time has come for Trump to call upon McConnell to force a vote on funding law enforcement working during the partial shutdown. The bill should require immediate pay for agencies like Border Patrol, ICE, FBI, DEA, TSA, and the Coast Guard. That’ll still leave the nonessential agencies on the table (many of which probably don’t need to exist) while daring Democrats in the Senate to vote against pay for law enforcement. I’d force Democrats to hold the floor and continuously block the bill. Right now, Senate Republicans are doing nothing while Pelosi passes her bills out of the House. This will shift the momentum.

Step 2: Deny pay to the cartels

The cartels are making a killing off the judicially created loopholes in our laws. McConnell should force votes on ending the Flores settlement, which is what is incentivizing family units to come with children (sometimes not even their own) and get quasi-amnesty through catch-and-release. He should also make them take tough votes on welfare benefits for illegal aliens and clamping down on identity theft.

Step 3: Stop illegals from murdering Americans

The Senate should also force votes on a bill named after murdered officer Ronil Singh. Every illegal alien homicide, by definition, is avoidable because the illegal aliens shouldn’t be in the country. However, most of them are doubly avoidable because most murderers usually have prior rap sheets and are picked up for “lesser” crimes. This is the enduring lesson of Ronil Singh’s murderer, who was picked up twice by cops for DUI but was never turned over to ICE.

As of fiscal year 2013, we already had 1.9 million criminal aliens in this country, yet almost none of them have been deported, and that number is likely much higher now. Republicans need to mandate immediate apprehension and deportation of all criminal aliens and cut off funding to any locality that fails to turn over illegal aliens arrested for crimes, including DUIs and drug trafficking. Interior enforcement is the key, and voting against it is radioactive for certain Democrats if Republicans actually forced a sustained debate over it.

The bottom line is that Democrats have never been forced to defend all their indefensible positions, nor have they felt any urgency to change course. Trump has a bully pulpit that nobody ever had; he wields the executive powers to follow immigration law and block foreign invasions that every president has had; and his party still has control over the Senate, where he can embarrass Democrats with one vote after another.

There is no silver bullet strategy after years of messaging failures by the GOP on the immigration issue. But declining to use the bully pulpit, failing to force Democrats to take tough votes, and negotiating down on amnesty without any executive leverage is surely a recipe for disaster. (For more from the author of “Trump Should Revisit 3 Executive Powers to Break the Border Impasse” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE