3 Reasons Why the Media’s ‘Walls Won’t Work to Stop Drugs’ Argument Is Wrong

Prescription painkiller deaths are responsible for only a small portion of drug deaths and almost none of the epidemic-level increase since 2014. Yet Congress was willing to regulate the heck out of prescriptions in order to address the epidemic. But when it comes to illicit drugs, which are doing most of the drug killing and are almost all coming in from the Mexican drug cartels and their criminal alien syndicates, suddenly the political class has no interest in solutions unless you can prove that it will stop 100 percent of the problem.

Last year, Congress held endless hearings, wrote copious reports, and passed dozens of bills misdiagnosing the poly-drug crisis, its nature, and its source. They spent billions of dollars funding unproven addiction treatment programs while regulating prescription painkillers. Then they passed a bill with endless leniencies for drug traffickers. To the extent they ever spoke about illicit drugs, they focused on China and the dark web, but would never mention the word Mexico or the southern border, where almost all of the drugs are brought into the country. They were willing to do everything that, in their mind, would mitigate the emergency epidemic, even when they went after the wrong source. Now that we’ve successfully exposed the authentic source of the crisis – the Mexican border and lack of interior enforcement against cartel distributors in America – Congress is suddenly not interested in doing anything unless it’s a bulletproof end-all solution.

Now that the media finally has been forced to admit that the source of the drug problem is the Mexican cartels, the same evil terrorist groups orchestrating the flow of illegal immigration, leftists have a new talking point. They contend that almost all of the drugs come through the points of entry and not in between the points, thereby making a wall completely irrelevant to mitigating the drug trafficking problem. This talking point is part of a general trend where they magnify the problem beyond the solution of the wall. For example, after calling us kooks for years when we warned that the most brutal cartels were digging tunnels into our territory, the media is now admitting this is indeed taking place in order to, in their minds, diminish the efficacy of the wall as a solution.

But this in itself is a self-indictment of their refusal to deal with the problem through the years. Really? So, this is even worse than what a wall can solve? All the more so this should be treated as a national emergency, then. We should be sending our military over the Rio Grande to fight these terror groups.

This new alarmist argument that a wall is ineffective to combat the cartels is ludicrous for a number of reasons.

1. The wall as a force multiplier to effectively channel resources: Before I explain how drugs are pouring through between points of entry, it’s important to understand that having substantial barriers rather than an open frontier in many areas allows our agents to place their resources more in points of entry to interdict the drugs. The same thing applies to their argument about tunnels. It’s sure a lot easier to detect the tunnels and drones, as well as the criminal activity at the points of entry, when the agents are not completely shut down by thousands of bogus asylum seekers every day coming in between the points of entry. With that chaos successfully blocked by the wall, the agents can focus all their attention on the criminal activities of the cartels rather than serving as babysitters and field hospitals between the points of entry.

2. Drugs absolutely pour in between the points of entry: The reason the media is asserting that most drugs come in at the points of entry is not because they know it to be true, but because most of the drug seizures occur at the points of entry. But that outcome is dictated by pure common sense. While the cartels do succeed in getting drugs in at the points of entry, it’s obvious that we have the most success in detecting drugs in this carefully controlled environment. While in the hundreds of miles of open frontier, the cartels get the drugs in un-interdicted at all, we catch a lot of their contraband at the checkpoints. On the other hand, we likely only catch an infinitesimal amount of drugs in between the points of entry.

The most important fact about the border the media is obfuscating is that the cartels control the entire flow of migrants precisely so they can strategically tie down our agents with a humanitarian crisis while they confidently bring in drugs, gangs, criminals, cartel enforcers, and special interest aliens with the full confidence that no agents will be present in the gaps they tactically created. As Brandon Judd, the president of the National Border Council, explained to me last year, “The cartels flood the metropolitan areas with more family units than we have resources to deal with, causing us to move resources from rural areas, thereby creating the gaps that allow them to move more valuable products like illicit narcotics and criminal aliens. It’s sort of like a game of football.”

Why do you think the volume and widespread availability of lethal illicit drugs spiked to epidemic levels suddenly in 2013-2015 with the rise of the Central American teens and again with the flow of the family units? They all came in between the points of entry, not at the points of entry. Many of the UACs served as drug runners.

Jaeson Jones, who commanded a group of Texas Rangers dealing with this precise problem at the time, told me it’s laughable to suggest the cartels aren’t bringing in drugs between the points of entry. “Most unaccompanied alien children enter our country between the points of entry,” said the retired captain, who spent 24 years with the Texas Department of Public Safety focusing on counterterrorism and counter-narcotics at our border. “Every day, these teens and young adults are forced into human trafficking, human smuggling, and drug trafficking in order to pay their way to be smuggled into the United States by the cartels.”

The cartels knew that we never prosecute teens on drug charges at the federal level and therefore deliberately used them to bring in drugs. As Jeff Sessions said last June, “These drug cartels know our laws and take advantage of our generosity. They are only too happy to use children to smuggle their drugs as well.” Those kids who help smuggle humans and drugs because of our lenient laws are referred to as polleritos.

Many of them also went on to fuel the gang crisis as well. Gangs are now the distributors of these drugs. So, the invasion of UACs – yes, between the points of entry – thanks to a lack of a standing deterrent is really two for the price of one in fueling the drug crisis.

Moreover, Jones told me his officers have been dealing with a long-standing problem of the cartels recruiting dual U.S.-Mexican citizens in middle and high schools on our side of the border to smuggle drugs across the border. “For the last decade across the southwest border, America’s youth have become the ideal smuggler for the Mexican cartels. The cartels have learned that U.S. prosecutors in most cases will either not prosecute or will be very lenient involving juvenile smuggling offenses. We must protect our youth from the Mexican cartels.”

Again, this was occurring between the points of entry just as much as at the points of entry, and it is a crisis that will be mitigated by the construction of a wall, among other assists needed at the border.

In July 2018, the DEA started a new program in San Diego to combat the cartels recruiting in schools on our side of the border to smuggle drugs in both in cars and on foot. It’s no wonder a local San Diego station accused CNN of losing interest in interviewing their reporters after they expressed their educated view that barriers at the border work.

3. Interior enforcement is even more important to stopping drugs, but Dems oppose that even more strongly. Democrats are not wrong when they assert that not all problems will be addressed by the wall. The problem is that is a further indictment of their visceral opposition to interior enforcement and deportations. Sure, the cartels will always be able to find ways to get some drugs into our country. But merely getting drugs past the border is not their goal. Their ultimate goal is establishing profitable networks that can operate in our major cities undetected in perpetuity. That is absolutely impossible without sanctuary cities.

As I’ve noted in my series on sanctuary cities and the drug crisis, the drug crisis reached epidemic levels during Obama’s second term, right as he began dismantling interior enforcement and sanctuary politics took over in major metro areas. All of the organizational trafficking is from foreign nationals. It’s bad enough that American drug traffickers barely serve any jail time any more and are back on the streets in no time. But criminal aliens, who, again, control all the primary-level trafficking, can and should be deported. We don’t need to land convictions; we just need to bust up their networks and get them out of here.

This also ties in to the new Democrat talking point about half of illegal immigration stemming from visa overstays. They are exactly right! So many of the Dominicans fueling the drug crisis in New England fly into Logan Airport with false Puerto Rican identities. If we actually got tough on interior enforcement, it would solve both the illegal immigration and the drug problem.

Yes, we need both border and interior enforcement. Yet, Democrats, because their border denialism has been discredited, must resort to a cat-and-mouse game of “No, this is not the problem, the other issue not directly before us now is the real problem … except we oppose action on that too.”

Finally, you know what is even more effective than both border walls and deportations? Actually making illegal immigration illegal and not incentivizing it with all sorts of magnets and benefits. This is really a very easy issue to solve. In life, there are can’ts and there are won’ts. When it comes to protecting our sovereignty and security from external threats, there are no can’ts. It’s all won’ts. (For more from the author of “3 Reasons Why the Media’s ‘Walls Won’t Work to Stop Drugs’ Argument Is Wrong” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Media Attacks Rand Paul for Going to Socialized-Medicine-Canada to Get Surgery, Fails to Mention IMPORTANT Piece of Information

On Monday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was widely criticized for the announcement that he would have hernia surgery in Canada, a country with socialized medicine. Despite the hospital being private and specializing in hernias, critics cited Paul’s opposition to socialized medicine.

The surgery is related to an injury Paul suffered when his neighbor, Rene Boucher, attacked him while he was doing yard work, leaving him with six broken ribs and damage to his lungs, The Washington Times reports.

Boucher is reportedly being sued by Paul for $4,000 in medical expenses plus the costs of the hernia surgery. The Courier Journal reports the court documents cite the cost of the hernia procedure as ranging between $5,000 and $8,000. Boucher was sentenced to 30 days in prison for assaulting a member of Congress; federal prosecutors are reportedly appealing the case.

Paul’s lawsuit says that he will undergo an outpatient surgery in Canada later this month at Shouldice Hernia Hospital, which claims to be “the only licensed hospital in the world dedicated to repairing hernias.”

“This is a private, world renowned hospital separate from any system and people come from around the world to pay cash for their services,” Kelsey Cooper, a spokeswoman for Paul, told The Hill.

(Read more from “Media Attacks Rand Paul for Going to Socialized-Medicine-Canada to Get Surgery, Fails to Mention IMPORTANT Piece of Information” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Texas Court Halts Execution for Man Who Murdered 13 Month-Old in Horrific ‘Exorcism’ Ritual — Here’s Why

A Texas Court of Criminal Appeals halted the execution scheduled Tuesday of a man who was convicted in 2010 of murdering a 13 month-old child in an exorcism ritual.

Blaine Milam was sentenced to death for the gruesome murder of Amora Carson, his girlfriend’s 13 month-old child, in 2008 in East Texas. He later said that he believed the infant was possessed by demons and that he needed to commit an exorcism ritual to save her.

The court issued the stay of execution on the basis that bite-mark evidence had been discredited since the original conviction, and that new laws about the treatment of mentally impaired felons applied in the case. . .

Milam and his girlfriend Jessica Carson contacted the police in December of 2008 and told them that they had come home to find the baby dead. When police arrived to their home, they found the deceased child brutally beaten with a hammer and with numerous bite-mark injuries. . .

When police confronted Carson about discrepancies between her story and Milam’s, she confessed that they had believed the baby was possessed, and that she died while they performed an exorcism. Carson claimed that the baby had hit herself with the hammer while under possession.

(Read more from “Texas Court Halts Execution for Man Who Murdered 13 Month-Old in Horrific ‘Exorcism’ Ritual — Here’s Why” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Disgust: Actress Declares That Her ‘First Abortion’ at Age 19 Was ‘My Best One.’ and the Audience Loves It.

Actress and outspoken abortion advocate Martha Plimpton (“The Goonies” and a host of TV shows) proudly told a Seattle audience that she got her “first abortion” at age 19 from a Seattle Planned Parenthood and that it was her “best” abortion.

“Seattle has some particular significance for me for lots of reasons,” the gravelly voiced Plimpton told the #ShoutYourAbortion audience gathered at the city’s Town Hall. “I’ve got a lot of family here, some of whom are here in the audience tonight. I also had my first abortion here at the Seattle Planned Parenthood!” . . .

“Notice I said ‘first.’ I said ‘first,'” she quickly added, seemingly trying to underscore an affinity for the-more-the-merrier when it comes to abortion. “And I don’t want Seattle — I don’t want you guys to feel insecure, it was my best one. . .

“Heads and tails above the rest,” she went on about her abortion. “If I could Yelp review it, I totally would. And if that doctor’s here tonight, I don’t remember you at all, I was 19. I was 19, but I thank you nonetheless.”

Onstage with Plimpton — and clapping and laughing in response to her strident statements — was Dr. Willie Parker, a self-proclaimed Christian and well-known abortion provider and advocate who discussed his views with the actress.

(Read more from “Disgust: Actress Declares That Her ‘First Abortion’ at Age 19 Was ‘My Best One.’ and the Audience Loves It.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Missing: Key Documents About Alleged Misconduct by Robert Mueller’s Lead Prosecutor

Andrew Weissmann, the lead prosecutor for Special Counsel Robert Mueller, has a history of questionable conduct. But the full extent of Weissmann’s alleged prosecutorial misconduct is unclear because some of the most serious charges were hidden behind redactions and secreted in sealed court filings.

Two months ago I sued to have these records released, but late Friday federal Judge Sim Lake’s case manager confirmed that several of the sought-after documents are missing from the court record.

In early November, Houston attorney Kevin Fulton of the Fulton Law Group filed a motion in a Texas federal court to unseal and unredact court records related to claimed prosecutorial misconduct by Weissmann during the latter’s stint as the head of the Enron Task Force. . .

Even if cause originally existed to keep the content of this email secret, with the underlying criminal cases now complete, there is no longer a basis to hide the details from the public. Thus, my motion to unredact the public record asked Judge Lake, who had presided over the criminal cases, to release unredacted copies of several court filings, most significantly the joint motion to dismiss, which included this email and other relevant details.

Over the holidays, though, the court entered an “amended notice,” announcing that after “a full and exhaustive” search by the clerk, certain court filings “were unrecoverable in their original or un-redacted form,” including the unredacted copy of the joint motion to dismiss and the supporting memorandum. Also missing from the court record was the government’s unredacted response to this motion, which likely would have included the full text—or relevant portions—of the Weissmann email. (Read more from “Missing: Key Documents About Alleged Misconduct by Robert Mueller’s Lead Prosecutor” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Dossier: Two Alarming Explanations for the FBI Trump-Russia Investigation

The two alarming explanations for Comey-McCabe-Strzok FBI’s evidence-free Trump-Russia investigation

There are really only two tenable explanations for the bombshell revelation that the Andrew McCabe-led FBI opened up a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump’s supposed ties to Russia following his decision to fire then-FBI Director James Comey.

The first is that the FBI is extremely incompetent. Following the firing of disgraced FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe explored an evidence-free hunch, based on anonymously sourced media reports and political opposition material traced to Democrats, that the president was a Russian agent.

The second is that McCabe, knowing that he had nothing, used the Trump-Russia collusion “conspiracies” as part of an information operation intended to destroy the legitimacy of the duly elected president, hoping the FBI probe would tie him up in endless additional investigations that would chip away at his mandate. To put it more bluntly, McCabe and his collaborators engaged in subversion.

When discussing this shocking idea, it’s worth remembering that Andrew McCabe has a long track record of appalling behavior. He was fired after an internal DOJ probe found that he lied under oath at least three separate times. Additionally, McCabe attempted to frame and sabotage FBI colleagues for his own leaks to the media. McCabe later blamed his multiple lies on the president, claiming the “chaos inside the FBI under siege from Trump and his allies” forced him to lie under oath. (Read more from “The Dossier: Two Alarming Explanations for the FBI Trump-Russia Investigation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Obama-Appointed Judges Halt Trump Administration’s New ACA Regulations on Birth Control

The judiciary once again struck one for the Obama White House, with a judge issuing a nationwide injunction on a new Affordable Care Act regulation concerning contraceptives. The Washington Post reported that the regulation expanded the exemption clause with regards to birth control; employers can now cite moral and religious as reasons for the exemption. The first ruling only barred implementation of this Trump administration regulation in 13 Democratic states, including the District of Columbia. This latest one once again pits the Obama judicial cohort against the Trump White House (via WaPo):

A pair of federal judges stepped in at the last moment to pause Trump administration rules that would restrict the ability of some women to get birth control at no charge because their employers object on religious or moral grounds.

A Pennsylvania district court judge issued a nationwide injunction Monday afternoon, just as the new policy was slated to take effect. That ruling came less than 24 hours after a California district court judge issued a more limited stay in 13 Democratic states and the District of Columbia, while challenges are being argued.

The rulings in rapid succession, both by judges appointed by Barack Obama, are the latest legal twists in a dispute over an expansion of health benefits for women under the Affordable Care Act that has wound through the courts for years.

The ACA, the sprawling 2010 health-care law pushed through by a Democratic Congress, says that people should be insured for preventive services without paying any out-of-pocket fees — and that women’s health services must be included. Under the law, all forms of FDA-approved contraception have been covered since 2012.

(Read more from “Obama-Appointed Judges Halt Trump Administration’s New ACA Regulations on Birth Control” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Pentagon: Another Round of Troops Will Head to the Border

By Townhall. The Pentagon on Monday announced a mission to extend the length of time active duty troops remain on the Southern border. Troops will continue to assist border patrol with and provide security through Sept 30, Reuters reported. The decision was made based on a request from the Department of Homeland Security, the agency that over sees the border patrol.

New troops heading to the border “will include combat engineers to fortify border crossings and aviation units to help ferry Border Patrol agents,” USA Today reported.

“DOD is transitioning its support at the southwestern border from hardening ports of entry to mobile surveillance and detection, as well as concertina wire emplacement between ports of entry. DOD will continue to provide aviation support,” the Pentagon said in a statement Monday.

The current deployment was issued by former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and was set to expire Jan 30. The new order was approved by Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan. (Read more from “Pentagon: Another Round of Troops Will Head to the Border” HERE)

__________________________________________________

Pentagon to Send More Active-Duty Troops to Southwest Border

By USA Today. The Pentagon will send a fresh deployment of active-duty troops to the southern border at the request of officials from the Department of Homeland Security.

Late Monday, the Pentagon also announced that deployments of active-duty troops would extend through September.

The new contingent of troops will include combat engineers to fortify border crossings and aviation units to help ferry Border Patrol agents, according to a Defense Department official who was not authorized to speak publicly.

The troops will also help with surveillance at the border, according to the Pentagon statement.

The new deployment has been anticipated since Homeland Security officials made the request to the Pentagon for additional resources late last month. There are about 2,350 active-duty troops and an additional 2,200 National Guardsmen at the border. (Read more from “Pentagon to Send More Active-Duty Troops to Southwest Border” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Why Trump Will Win the Shutdown

By The Federalist. Compromise. It’s a word President Trump used several times yesterday. He is open to compromise. In this case, that means something short of the $5 billion he wants for a border wall. He’s open to taking less, perhaps in exchange for not applying the law to younger illegal immigrants. This is clearly the easiest way out of the current debacle. But it is something the Democrats, led by “No Wall” Nancy Pelosi, have said they will never support.

This is a problem. Democrats have backed themselves up against a, well, a wall. They have created a situation in which if they give even one dollar to Trump to build a wall, or fence, steel barrier, or whatever, they have lost the political fight. Pelosi, the great speaker of the House who gets things done, has left herself no leverage to get anything done. She could ask for almost anything in exchange for wall funding, but instead, she won’t budge.

Trump is channeling his inner Michael Corleone and telling Democrats that his offer is this: nothing, not even the price of the border wall, which he would appreciate Pelosi appropriating. So here we are.

We all like to knock and mock Trump’s braggadocio claims that he is the best negotiator ever. But in this case, he really has outflanked his opponents. Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have painted themselves into a corner. They have said, “No funding for a wall.” They say this despite the fact that they have supported barrier funding in the past. So in essence they have given themselves no fallback position. . . .

A president always has an advantage in a government shutdown. The executive branch speaks with a single voice, while Congress is divided between parties. Trump is clearly pointing to and offering a solution. The House Democrats aren’t. And their intransigence is highlighted by the fact that Republican members of Congress are calling them out. (Read more from “Why Trump Will Win the Shutdown” HERE)

____________________________________________

Trump Urged to Temporarily Reopen Government

By BBC. A senior US Republican has urged President Donald Trump to temporarily reopen parts of the government shut down for more than three weeks.

Senator Lindsey Graham, who is close to Mr Trump, said a limited re-opening of a few weeks would allow talks to resume between Republicans and Democrats.

The partial government shutdown has now become the longest in US history.

It has left hundreds of thousands of public workers unpaid and government offices closed.

President Trump is refusing to approve a budget unless it includes $5.7bn (£4.5bn) for a wall along the Mexican border – a key campaign pledge, which the president said that Mexico would pay for. (Read more from “Trump Urged to Temporarily Reopen Government” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Cali Wheels out Plan for New Statewide Tax on Drinking Water

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) wants to tax the state’s drinking water, a move he says will allow poor people access to safe and affordable water. . .

Newsom’s proposed 2019-20 budget includes the creation a “safe and affordable drinking water fund,” to “enable the State Water Resources Control Board to assist communities, particularly disadvantaged communities, in paying for the short-term and long-term costs of obtaining access to safe and affordable drinking water,” SFgate.com reported.

The Association of California Water Agencies, which represents more than 400 water suppliers across the state, swiftly rebuked the idea of a water tax. In a statement, the association said it would be “highly problematic” and not necessary due to what it calls the state’s ample budget surplus.

“The vast majority of the state’s residents have access to safe drinking water, but a small percentage of the population does not,” the association stated. “This unacceptable reality is a social issue for the State of California. ACWA believes that making access to safe drinking water for all Californians should be a top priority for the State. However, a statewide water tax is highly problematic and is not necessary when alternative funding solutions exist and the state has a huge budget surplus.”

Orange County Republican Travis Allen, who ran for governor in 2018, also blasted the idea.

(Read more from “Cali Wheels out Plan for New Statewide Tax on Drinking Water” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE