Only Two Democrat Senators Will Publicly Oppose the Anti-Israel BDS Movement

/0 Comments/in , /by

Sen. Marco Rubio threw a rock at a political hornet’s nest on Monday when he tweeted, “The shutdown is not the reason Senate Democrats don’t want to move to Middle East Security Bill. A huge argument broke out at Senate Dem meeting last week over BDS. A significant # of Senate Democrats now support #BDS & Dem leaders want to avoid a floor vote that reveals that.”

Twitter erupted — as it is wont to do — with users arguing whether this reflected insider knowledge or was a convenient lie. Personally, I’m inclined to believe there’s something to what Rubio wrote. Anyone who’s followed American foreign policy in recent years knows that the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement is an explosive and barely contained hot-button issue for Democrats.

Consider that one year ago, Pew Research polled Americans’ attitudes toward Israel and the Palestinians. They reported that “the partisan divide in Middle East sympathies, for Israel or the Palestinians, is now wider than at any point since 1978. Currently, 79% of Republicans say they sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians, compared with just 27% of Democrats.”

Drilling down, Pew quantified the change within the Democratic Party’s progressive wing that’s been apparent to Middle East watchers for some time: “The share of liberal Democrats who sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians has declined from 33% to 19% since 2016. Currently, nearly twice as many liberal Democrats say they sympathize more with the Palestinians than with Israel (35% vs. 19%).”

Lest these numbers be dismissed as theoretical concerns, Midwestern voters just elected the nation’s first two pro-BDS members of Congress. Of course, neither Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan nor Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota were particularly forthright about their views during election season. It wasn’t until after winning her Democratic primary that Tlaib “explicitly endors[ed] a one-state solution and oppos[ed] aid [to Israel], a change celebrated by far-left Palestinian activists, who sharply criticized her for seeking out and receiving the J Street endorsement.” Omar didn’t publicly acknowledge that she supported BDS until after November’s election. (Read more from “Only Two Democrat Senators Will Publicly Oppose the Anti-Israel BDS Movement” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

For Just 12.5 Percent of Annual Afghanistan Costs, We Can Secure the Border

/0 Comments/in , /by

The United States continues to spend an enormous amount of money nation-building in Afghanistan, where the U.S. has virtually zero interests, in a country whose people present no current threat to us.

In 2018 alone, the Pentagon estimated that the U.S. military dropped $45 billion dollars on the long Afghan war, which has been going on for 17 years and counting. As I detailed last month in Conservative Review, there is no longer an American interest in Afghanistan, and there has not been for quite some time. And given that President Trump appears to be leaning toward finally withdrawing soldiers from Afghanistan, we can hope that significant funds will soon be freed up for other U.S. priorities.

Topping that list of unfunded national security priorities is a no-brainer: our southern border, which remains recklessly unsecure and leaves our Border Patrol agents hopelessly underfunded for stopping some of the most dangerous criminal organizations and individuals from entering our country.

For just 12.5 percent ($5.7 billion) of the $45 billion that we spent in Afghanistan last year, the president and Congress can fund and bolster border security. Plus, we can reopen the government and repurpose wasted funds to reinforce actual national security measures.

There are many other places where the president can seek funds for the border wall. But given that the border wall is a national security issue, it’s much easier to make the case that the funds should come from the Defense Department.

Afghanistan isn’t the only multibillion-dollar boondoggle in the defense apparatus. The Daily Caller reported Wednesday, “The Defense Department has relinquished over $27 billion to the U.S. Treasury since 2013 simply because it couldn’t spend the money quick enough.”

In recent years, the Pentagon has burned through $125+ billion in bureaucratic waste. U.S. taxpayers footed the bill for the trillion-dollar boondoggle that is the F-35 program. The DOD also overpays defense contractors in a system that awards no-bid, non-competitive contracts.

Many legal experts agree that the president has the statutory authority to build the wall and the right to reappropriate defense funding for the border wall, which should be priority 1A for our national security. If he doesn’t want to cut the Afghanistan nation-building budget by a mere 12.5 percent, he can find plenty of funds elsewhere within the Defense Department. (For more from the author of “For Just 12.5 Percent of Annual Afghanistan Costs, We Can Secure the Border” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Dark Arts of the Press Are on Full Display

/0 Comments/in , /by

How remarkable that the same press that obsessed Donald Trump straight into the White House has doubled down once he was there, to the point that the former editor of the New York Times called them out on it a few days ago. And it’s now going full Voldemort — “he who shall not be named” — when it comes to Trump’s Oval Office speech to the country.

And when I say remarkable, I mean totally predictable. Because journalism is magical and not at all broken.

Don Lemon at CNN. Mika at MSNBC. Don’t even run the president’s speech on our networks, they say. Or at the very least delay it so that we can get our, ahem, “fact-checking” underway. So much is at stake, they say.

For example, says Lemon, “people will believe [Trump].” And that. Can’t. Happen.

I mean, he’s Voldemort, remember. You can’t let his “propaganda” go unchecked, says Lemon. Because a man who said he wouldn’t even shake Trump’s hand if presented with the opportunity probably has the market cornered on objectivity.

This is bigger than just Lemon and Mika, though. They’re legion. The number of people in media who resent that we live in a representative republic that must endeavor to put the people’s legitimate desires first, no matter who the president might be, is far, far greater than the number of Constitution-loving people in the U.S. Congress, which is supposed to be serving those interests.

Not good. It’s a swarm of locusts vs. a single can of bug spray.

Such collective drunkenness now has the press inferring out loud that the people are simply too dumb to be left to their own devices. And that the president they elected is simply too terrible to even be listened to on two issues — the government shutdown and immigration — of obvious national importance. And that a properly ordered society, even if it isn’t remotely the form of social contract we actually live under, should depend on a bunch of unelected elites like the press and judges and scientists and Hollywood stars to tell the plebes when it’s time to jump and how high.

Good grief, people. It’s far past time to wake up to the consequences of all this. Because if the press believes it is this reasonable to consider muting the voice of a sitting president of the United States simply because they disagree with him, what do you think they are doing every other day of the week when it comes to shaping the narratives of the day?

The press thinks it is supposed to be deciding what the conversation is, and it is deeply wrong about that. Dangerously wrong. This is a country by, for, and of the people, led in part by an executive branch, whether it be Democrat or Republican or Trumpian, that is entitled to address the country from time to time as it sees fit.

That’s not remotely debatable to anyone who isn’t, quite frankly, an enemy of liberty. That’s not Trump. He’s got a lot of problems, but that’s not one of them.

He’s not Voldemort. But the press? They clearly know a thing or two about the dark arts. (For more from the author of “The Dark Arts of the Press Are on Full Display” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Fresh Speculation Says Rod Rosenstein May Leave DOJ He Helped Corrupt

/0 Comments/in , /by

One of the most powerful men in the country appears poised to step off the Washington chess board. According to multiple reports, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will resign in the coming weeks to make room for the incoming Attorney General William Barr—if Barr is indeed confirmed. According to The New York Times, Rosenstein helped pick Barr and they worked together at the Justice Department.

Rosenstein’s time at the Department of Justice (DOJ) will be remembered with controversy. To the public, he is perhaps best remembered for an alleged plot to convince cabinet members to depose the president using the 25th Amendment and a secret recording Rosenstein would make.

Rosenstein’s critics charge that he used his powerful position to obstruct congressional oversight (in some cases to protect himself personally), direct selective and political prosecution, oversee the Robert Mueller investigation in spite of an apparent conflict of interest, approve the final extension on the government surveillance of U.S. citizen Carter Page in spite of serious questions about the justification, and provide questionable testimony about an alleged incident during which Rosenstein is reported to have threatened congressional staffers.

Rosenstein started his DOJ career in 1989 after graduating from Harvard University when he landed a coveted internship with Mueller, who was then U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts. His long friendship with Mueller led Rosenstein to identify Mueller as his role model.

Rosenstein worked for Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s role in the White House Travel Office scandal. In 2000, Starr’s office (possibly at Rosenstein’s recommendation) publicly declined prosecution of Hillary Clinton for her role in the scandal. Rosenstein is married to Lisa Barsoomian, who represented Bill Clinton in 1999. Rosenstein also worked for the Clinton administration in the 1990s. (Read more from “Fresh Speculation Says Rod Rosenstein May Leave DOJ He Helped Corrupt” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Shocking: Pedophile Confesses to Decade Long Unsolved Murder

/0 Comments/in , /by

A convicted pedophile reportedly confessed to the 1996 murder of child pageant princess JonBenét Ramsey in letters obtained by The Daily Mail published Thursday.

Gary Oliva, 54, was using an address 10 blocks away from JonBenét’s home in Boulder, Colorado, when she was killed. He confessed to JonBenét’s slaying in letters he wrote from prison, where he’s serving a 10-year sentence for child pornography, reported The Daily Mail.

“I never loved anyone like I did JonBenét and yet I let her slip and her head bashed in half and I watched her die. It was an accident. Please believe me. She was not like the other kids,” Oliva wrote. . .

Oliva is not the first man to claim he killed JonBenét. John Mark Karr, who may go by the name Alex Reich, allegedly confessed to killing her in 2006, but police could find no hard evidence linking him to the case. He even had an alibi that placed him outside of Colorado, according to ABC News. . .

“JonBenét completely changed me and removed all evil from me. Just one look at her beautiful face, her glowing beautiful skin, and her divine God-body, I realized I was wrong to kill other kids. Yet by accident she died and it was my fault,” one of Oliva’s letters stated.

(Read more from “Shocking: Pedophile Confesses to Decade Long Unsolved Murder” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Is Michelle Obama Plotting to Take the White House in 2020?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By Townhall. Recently, the mainstream media gleefully reported something that many at first dismissed, quickly passing it off as nothing more than a transient morsel of cultural trivia, if not fake news.

Allegedly, a recent Gallup Poll not only bestowed upon Michelle Obama the honor of being The Most Admired Woman in 2018,but also thereby declared her to be more popular than Hillary and Oprah!

I would suggest this news might represent an ominous bellwether of measurable import to all of us who are hoping to see President Trump elected to a second term.

In politics, 2020 is but a blink away, and who will be anointed by the Democrats to challenge President Trump is being decided right now. And I promise you, they are considering Michelle Obama a possibility.

Back in May 2016, I published an op-ed entitled: Overlooking the Obvious, if Hillary is Indicted? In that editorial, I attempted to alert people in the late spring of that election year to the possibility that —in the event Hillary Clinton was indicted for the felonies she committed in connection with her infamous private email server— Michelle Obama stood an excellent chance of becoming the candidate who would be chosen by the DNC to replace Hillary at their National Convention in July. (Read more from “Is Michelle Obama Plotting to Take the White House in 2020?” HERE)

_________________________________________

Michelle Obama wins America’s ‘Most Admired Woman’ in Gallup poll

By CNBC. Former U.S. first lady Michelle Obama has been named America’s “Most Admired Woman” in 2018, ending Hillary Clinton’s 17-year winning run.

The lawyer, author, and activist won the 2018 poll convincingly, securing 15 percent of the mentions among the 1,025 of people surveyed. . .

Michelle Obama 15

Oprah Winfrey 5

Hillary Clinton 4

(Read more from “Michelle Obama wins America’s ‘Most Admired Woman’ in Gallup poll” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Remember When Starbucks Caved and Opened Their Bathrooms to Non-Customers? Here’s How That Worked Out.

/0 Comments/in , , /by

There are so many contrived outrages in a given week, let alone a year, that it can be hard to recall any individual instance of outrage after it has already passed. But the infamous Starbucks bathroom outrage was so phony, so absurd, and so disconnected from anything resembling logic or reason, that it deserves to be remembered.

In case you need a refresher course: a Starbucks manager at a location in Philadelphia came under heavy fire last spring after refusing restroom privileges to two non-customers. The men, who happened to be black, asked to use the restroom but were informed that only paying customers were granted access to the facilities. This was not a policy she invented on her own. At the time, many Starbucks locations enforced this rule, just as many other restaurants and stores enforce similar rules. . .

Fast forward a few months. Certain Starbucks locations, less than a year after announcing this enlightened new restroom philosophy, now must install special disposal boxes for used heroin needles. They’ll also be removing regular trashcans from some bathrooms after employees expressed concern about getting pricked with needles while changing out the bags. There have been reports of condoms, alcohol bottles, and blood stains on the floors. Indeed, this bathroom free-for-all has made bathrooms ironically less accessible as some Starbucks restaurants have had to close their stalls for extended periods due to, says the New York Post, “prolonged cleaning.”

It may be fairly pointed out that Starbucks probably had many of these problems even before the new policy. Yes, and that’s exactly the point. That’s why the policy existed in the first place. A spacious, private, single-stall bathroom at a Starbucks in an urban area is an attractive place for drug addicts, drunks, vagrants, and other assorted characters. Most businesses are not interested in becoming de facto homeless shelters or halfway homes. Historically, that’s why they reserve their bathrooms and their tables for people who are actually interested in purchasing their products. It’s not a fail-proof plan, but it’s relatively effective. There’s a reason why these needle disposal boxes only became necessary after they changed the policy. (Read more from “Remember When Starbucks Caved and Opened Their Bathrooms to Non-Customers? Here’s How That Worked Out.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Media’s Angry Response to President Trump’s Oval Office Speech Comes up Short

/0 Comments/in , /by

A humanitarian and security crisis at the southern border must be addressed, President Donald Trump told the country last night in his first Oval Office address. His speech also addressed the flow of drugs and crime, the high rates of abuse associated with human trafficking, and the use of children as pawns to thwart laws protecting the U.S. border from illegal entry.

“This is the tragic reality of illegal immigration on our southern border. This is the cycle of human suffering that I am determined to end,” Trump said, laying out a plan that includes drug-detection technology, increased border agents and immigration judges, $800 million in humanitarian assistance and medical support, legislative changes to ensure the safe return of children who enter the country illegally, and $5.7 billion for a “physical barrier” to help stop illegal entry.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer quickly responded to the address by saying there’s not really a crisis at the border. They told him that he should end the governmental shutdown, and said they could work on border security concerns in the months to come.

While pundits like to discuss who looked good and who looked bad in last night’s televised addresses, it’s worth pausing in appreciation of the various political leaders for taking part in the debate over national security and the extent of the problem caused by porous borders. Sometimes debates need to take place behind closed doors, but when competing ideologies are on display, it serves as a healthy public education about important issues that affect citizens’ lives.

The Democrats’ theme for the evening was “facts, not fear.” Many major media also adopted the same theme. The coordinated talking point began hours if not days before the speech even aired, with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota saying yesterday morning, “Fact-checkers are eating their Wheaties and getting extra rest since they will be working overtime tonight to separate fact from fiction on this border situation.” (Read more from “Media’s Angry Response to President Trump’s Oval Office Speech Comes up Short” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Supreme Court May Allow Mothers to Kill Babies for Being Disabled or a Girl

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Friday, the Supreme Court delayed its consideration of a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision that struck down two Indiana abortion statutes. The first banned abortions that take place as a result of the child’s race, sex, or disability. The second mandates that the remains of unborn children be buried or cremated.

This decision comes hard on the heels on the failure of a Republican-controlled federal government to take any action towards limiting abortion in the United States. Even Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, escaped unscathed, maintaining their government funding.

The Seventh Circuit’s rejection is even more frustrating considering the role abortion has played in legitimizing eugenics in both the United States and Europe. Such a resurgence is most notable in the plight of people with Down Syndrome.

In Iceland, for example, every single mother with an unborn baby diagnosed with Down decided to end the pregnancy. Only two to three babies with Down are born in the country every year. The small island nation is far from alone in this regard. In Denmark, 98 percent of women choose abortion when they discover their child has Down Syndrome, and the issue is replicated at somewhat lower levels across Europe.

In the United States, a smaller number of unborn babies diagnosed with Down are aborted compared to these countries, but our numbers are still unforgivably high. The best estimates claim abortion after prenatal diagnosis has reduced the total U.S. Down population by around 30 percent, a staggering amount. (Read more form “Supreme Court May Allow Mothers to Kill Babies for Being Disabled or a Girl” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Iran Tests POTUS, Taking First American Hostage During Trump Era

/0 Comments/in , /by

The terrorist regime that rules Iran has confirmed that it is holding U.S. Navy veteran Michael R. White hostage.

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi told Iran’s state-run Tasnim News Agency Wednesday: “An American citizen was arrested in the city of Mashhad some time ago and his case was conveyed to the U.S administration on first days.”

The New York Times confirmed White’s capture on Monday after speaking to his mother.

“Iran has been holding an American Navy veteran in prison on unspecified charges since late July, when he was seized while visiting an Iranian girlfriend, his mother said Monday,” the Times reported.

Iranwire, a website for Iranian expatriates, also discussed White’s capture. In the piece, Irvar Farhadi, a former Iranian prisoner, said he met Mr. White at Iran’s Vakilabad Prison in the city of Mashhad.

According to the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran (ICHRI), Vakilabad authorities conduct secret mass executions inside of the prison.

“He was not in a good psychological condition and is not allowed visitors or access to the phone. He is virtually a hostage without any charges against him,” Farhadi told Iranwire.

He added, “Michael is kept among dangerous criminals including murderers and professional drug smugglers and his life is in danger. I promised to myself that if I got out of prison one of the first things that I would do would be to inform people about the situation of this American prisoner.”

At least four U.S. citizens and one U.S. permanent resident are currently being held by Iran. CBS reports, citing sources, that Tehran is “holding the Americans to try to extract concessions such as those received in a deal reached with President Obama.”

President Obama set a dangerous precedent in paying a total of $1.7 billion dollars (in what appeared to resemble a ransom payment) for the release of four American hostages.

This is believed to be the first time that the Iranian regime has taken an American citizen hostage during the Trump era. The last known American detained by Iran was Xiyue Wang, a Ph.D. candidate at Princeton University. He was detained while conducting research in Tehran on August 8, 2016. Wang was later sentenced for espionage charges.

President Trump has a decision to make. He can follow in Obama’s footsteps and negotiate with the terrorist regime in Iran. He may instead choose to demand the unconditional release of the growing number of Americans held hostage by Tehran. The White House has not yet commented on the matter. The State Department said it was aware of the reports but did not comment further. (For more from the author of “Iran Tests POTUS, Taking First American Hostage During Trump Era” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE