Chuck Norris Backs Brilliant Idea to Fund Southern Border Wall

By Daily Wire. . .Yes, Chuck Norris, who starred in a bunch of martial arts movies, is still a bada** at age 78. And although he hasn’t been in a movie since 2012, Norris has kept busy writing several books on martial arts, exercise, philosophy, politics, Christian religion, and westerns, twice earning the title of New York Times best-selling author.

On Sunday, Norris penned a piece for WND, formerly known as World Net Daily. In the piece, headlined “An incredible solution to building the border wall,” Norris backs a proposal to have Mexico’s biggest drug lord fund construction of a barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border.

“I have written many articles over the years, but I have never written an article more important than this one. While Democrat and Republican leaders in Washington are polarized and in gridlock over how to pay for a wall on the U.S. southern border with Mexico, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is a Lone Ranger with a Tonto-sized idea riding into town to get the job done in a way that would cost taxpayers nothing at all,” he writes.

Cruz put out the proposal in April 2017, but it’s been forgotten (at least until Chuck Norris got his hands on it). Cruz wants “El Chapo” (real name Joaquin Guzman) to forfeit his $14 billion in assets to the U.S. government, which could then use the money for the barrier.

“Fourteen billion dollars will go a long way toward building a wall that will keep Americans safe and hinder the illegal flow of drugs, weapons, and individuals across our southern border,” Cruz said in a statement at the time. “Ensuring the safety and security of Texans is one of my top priorities. We must also be mindful of the impact on the federal budget. By leveraging any criminally forfeited assets of El Chapo and his ilk, we can offset the wall’s cost and make meaningful progress toward achieving President Trump’s stated border security objectives.” (Read more from “Chuck Norris Backs Brilliant Idea to Fund Southern Border Wall” HERE)

_____________________________________________

An Incredible Solution to Building the Border Wall

By WND. I have written many articles over the years, but I have never written an article more important than this one. While Democrat and Republican leaders in Washington are polarized and in gridlock over how to pay for a wall on the U.S. southern border with Mexico, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is a Lone Ranger with a Tonto-sized idea riding into town to get the job done in a way that would cost taxpayers nothing at all.

Because I live in the border state of Texas, it has made this issue even more personal to me. I also have many black belts that live in Mexico that are hindered by this crisis to even be able to visit the U.S. legally in order to attend our annual United Fighting Arts Federation (UFAF) Convention in Las Vegas. . .

If you didn’t know, El Chapo is almost entirely responsible for the majority of drugs that come up through the U.S. southern border. As the co-founder and head of the Sinaloa Cartel, he is the #1 supplier of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines into the U.S. If you or your loved ones have ever tried or been addicted to illegal drugs, odds are they originated from the Sinaloa Cartel. . .

s Sen. Cruz’s EL CHAPO Act not a brilliant idea to fund the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico? And guess what? A Mexican pays for it after all – one evil hombre who has repeatedly raped America’s communities and the souls of precious millions through narcotics and other criminalities for the past three decades.

Think of the impact passing the EL CHAPO Act could have. First, El Chapo’s drug monies could fully fund the completion of the entire U.S. southern border wall without a single dime more from the federal government or American taxpayers. Second, simultaneously the majority of El Chapo’s own drug trafficking into our country would be greatly diminished using his own monies. Third, president Trump could fulfill his primary campaign promise. Fourth, the Democrats would be able to open their government the same day the EL CHAPO Act passed. (Read more from “An Incredible Solution to Building the Border Wall” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

THANK YOU! Restoring Liberty is Funded for the Next QUARTER

2018 has been a banner year in Fake News, with the mainstream media feeding the American public with lie after lie. Their main focus was Trump-hate, using Russian collusion as their theme. Mueller cooperated. But just like tales of Hillary’s sainthood, all tangible evidence was omitted.

The state of free speech in America – without reasonable question – is in crisis. Most Americans now turn first to the Internet for their news, but almost every source is controlled by the Establishment.

What’s left for freedom? Only independent news sources like Restoring Liberty. But we cannot continue to exist without your generous help. Please donate HERE to fund us in the coming year.

Years ago, before the fascists at Google banned advertising on our website, Restoring Liberty was able to help cover basic costs through our ads. Now, we are totally dependent on you and our limited sponsors for financial support.

And this is the first time in a year that we’ve asked you, one of our loyal readers, to directly help fund Restoring Liberty. We are asking that you donate whatever you can to help us continue to aggressively push the Liberty agenda in 2019.

Although most of those working on Restoring Liberty are purely volunteers, we do pay one lead editor a small monthly stipend, pay our mail service several hundred dollars per month, and have other substantial expenses including Internet server fees, cloud hosting, and other costs. Please help us meet our expenses for the coming months HERE.

Your investment in Restoring Liberty will result in solid returns for liberty-minded Americans. Millions of page views each year continue to be produced by Restoring Liberty. Only your financial support makes this possible. Please donate $50, $100, or even $500 HERE today.

May God bless you in the coming year,

Joe and Kathleen
Publishers, Restoring Liberty

Judge Creates a ‘Right’ for Deportable Aliens to Be Tipped Off

While Jared Kushner is working assiduously to promote amnesty for some of the same criminal aliens for whom he just secured early release from prison, the courts are already repealing our immigration laws.

Among all the new rights created by courts in recent years, a judge just created a right for illegal aliens to receive advance notice of ICE deportations, even after they have final orders to be deported. In other words, criminals have a right to be tipped off so they can flee and remain elsewhere in the country while sucking us dry and committing more crimes.

There are over roughly one million aliens in this country with final deportation orders from immigration judges (not to be confused with Article III judges). These are people who harm our country and on behalf of whom we’ve already exhausted overgenerous and gratuitous notions of due process. One can imagine the millions of others that have evaded justice whom we haven’t even apprehended. It’s hard enough for ICE to secure a final deportation order. Yet now the federal courts are fighting trench warfare on every last criminal alien removal, making it impossible to deport anyone, even in slam-dunk cases.

On Thursday, California U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney, a Bush appointee, issued a temporary injunction against the deportation of 1,400 criminal legal aliens and 500 illegal aliens – all from Cambodia. He said that even though they all had final orders of deportation, ICE could not re-detain them for deportation without two weeks’ notice.

Judge Carney is the same radical in a robe who unilaterally declared California’s death penalty to be unconstitutional in 2014.

As I observed last week, the categories of offenses to trigger deportation for legal immigrants were set out in the 1996 immigration bill, which was adopted unanimously in the Senate and signed by Bill Clinton. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, and James Clyburn all voted for it. That is the law of the land. Yet judges have now seized the power to nullify immigration law outright and rewrite it with their own conditions.

This is the other side of the immigration story. In many ways, interior enforcement is even more important than the wall. Even if we stopped all illegal immigration across the land border, we have many criminals and dangerous aliens from the past few decades already here and many more who overstay their visas or who commit crimes while here with a green card. ICE can easily remove them, but the courts are now fighting every last deportation from every angle, even if it means rewriting immigration law. Left-wing groups have convinced judges that these particular criminal aliens in California are somehow a protected class because they fled violence in Cambodia, but that doesn’t change the fact that these particular Cambodians targeted for deportation are criminals. The fact that they were fleeing persecution should make it all the more egregious that they bit the hand that fed them and returned our generosity with criminal acts. The overwhelming majority of Cambodians who came here in the 1970s fleeing Khmer Rouge lived law-abiding lives in America.

As the courts have said for 130 years, there are no limitations on the power of the political branches to deport any foreign national for any reasons without any judicial oversight. The only limitation on immigration enforcement is that we can’t indefinitely detain aliens just for detention’s own sake, but can certainly detain for the purpose of deporting. Among many settled cases, here is what the court said in Turner v. Williams in 1904:

No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens, or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land, and unlawfully remain therein. But to declare unlawful residence within the country to be an infamous crime, punishable by deprivation of liberty and property, would be to pass out of the sphere of constitutional legislation unless provision were made that the fact of guilt should first be established by a judicial trial. … Detention or temporary confinement as part of the means necessary to give effect to the exclusion or expulsion was held valid, but so much of the act of 1892 as provided for imprisonment at hard labor without a judicial trial was held to be unconstitutional.

Thanks to a previous egregious court ruling (Zadvydas v. Davis), over the strenuous dissent of Justice Scalia, ICE has been forced to release a number of criminal aliens because their home countries refused to repatriate them. Now that the Trump administration has made diplomatic progress in achieving cooperation, ICE is finally tracking them down and simply following up on the existing deportation orders. This is where judicial civil disobedience comes in.

Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies told me she was concerned that the courts are essentially creating a “two-week notice to disappear” for criminal aliens. “This is outrageous on an operational level and in the context of the law,” said the veteran analyst of interior immigration enforcement. “If a federal judge can block these relatively cut-and-dried deportations, why not every single deportation case? This is nonsensical. The deportation due process that Congress set up is not meant to provide deportable aliens with endless appeals without appropriate grounds. The federal judiciary seems bent on taking over the civil deportation process and creating rights for removable non-citizens that Congress never intended and Americans do not wish to underwrite or allow.”

Indeed, the Supreme Court has already said decades ago that any effort to eliminate the concept of deportation must be done through the political branches, not the courts. “[I]t would be rash and irresponsible to reinterpret our fundamental law to deny or qualify the Government’s power of deportation. … It should not be initiated by judicial decision which can only deprive our own Government of a power of defense and reprisal without obtaining for American citizens abroad any reciprocal privileges or immunities,” said the high court in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952).

In 1893, the Supreme Court made it clear that the power to deport is just as unassailable as the power to exclude so long as the alien has not been naturalized. “The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.” (Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 707 (1893))

I couldn’t reach out to ICE for reaction because the agency is limited in media correspondence during the partial shutdown. While ICE could not respond to any media requests during the shutdown, the courts seem to have no problems operating 24/7 to subvert our sovereignty.

The problem of judicial amnesty is one of the many reasons why Trump would be insane to allow Jared to push him into a deal of “amnesty for a border wall.” If courts are voiding existing statutes that explicitly call for deportations, one can only imagine what would happen once the law is changed to blatantly shield a number of illegal aliens from deportation. They would essentially shut down deportations for everyone so that all aliens can be afforded an opportunity to apply for status. Then, a number of others will just come here on tourist visas and overstay their visas indefinitely while the courts shield them from any interior enforcement.

Instead of agreeing to amnesty, it’s time to double down on the original promise of 1996 – a promise Schumer and Pelosi agreed with – to stop all illegal immigration once and for all and to deport criminal aliens. That promise will never be actualized until we finally enforce the judiciary’s own settled case law on today’s activists disguised as judges. (For more from the author of “Judge Creates a ‘Right’ for Deportable Aliens to Be Tipped Off” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WATCH: RNC Releases New Video Highlighting Families Impacted by Illegal Immigration

The Republican National Committee (RNC) released a new ad on Monday night highlighting how American families have been impacted by illegal aliens, which comes a day before President Donald Trump is set to address the nation about the ongoing crisis on the southern border.

The video was released as part of a new website launched by the RNC called Borderfacts.com, which was created to combat misinformation from the media and Democrat Party.

“President Trump is committed to fighting for American citizens and our national security,” RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel said in a statement. “Meanwhile, Democrats are committed to fighting President Trump.”

The video highlights multiple Americans who have been killed by illegal aliens, including the recent tragedy out of California where an illegal alien allegedly murdered Ronil Singh, a legal immigrant who was a police officer. . .

“When we use phrases like ‘undocumented workers,’ we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration, which the American people overwhelmingly oppose,” Senator Chuck Schumer said in 2009. “If you don’t think it’s illegal, you are not going to say it. I think it is illegal and wrong, and we have to change it.”

(Read more from “WATCH: RNC Releases New Video Highlighting Families Impacted by Illegal Immigration” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Marco Rubio Is Spearheading a Gun Control Policy 2A Advocates Warned About

Ahead of the one year anniversary of the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) on Thursday re-introduced the “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act,” commonly referred to as “red flag laws.”

“A gun violence restraining order is one of the most effective policies we can put in place to prevent another tragedy like Parkland,” Rubio said in a statement. “We can help keep our schools and communities safe by empowering law enforcement or family members to use the judicial system to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. This idea has already proven successful in states like Florida, and it is my hope that this bill will get other states to do the same thing.” . . .

Gun Owners of America and the National Shooting Sports Foundation have both voiced concerns over red flag laws. The main concern is the potential for a lack of due process. While Rubio’s previous piece of legislation required a court hearing within 14 days of being petitioned, there’s no appeals process. Once a person is deemed unfit, their Second Amendment rights can – and will – be revoked.

The other issue is the abuse factor. There’s nothing that keeps people from abusing this system. Here’s an example:

A man is an avid Second Amendment supporter, enjoys going to the range and is a concealed carrier. He decides the relationship with his girlfriend is no longer working out so he breaks up with her. She’s upset about the breakup. To get back at him, she petitions the court utilizing red flag laws (assuming they’re already in place). Her claim is he’s mentally unfit to own a firearm. She decides to lie and say he’s threatened her and has stocked up on ammunition. The court would, more than likely, decide he is a threat. That means they’d revoke his access to firearms. There’s nothing that would prevent the ex-girlfriend from making these false claims. And there’s no way for him to refute the claim. (Read more from “Marco Rubio Is Spearheading a Gun Control Policy 2A Advocates Warned About” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

High Schoolers Want to Give Bibles to Classmates During Lunch — but Weren’t Allowed

Christian students in a Pennsylvania public school recently asked permission to pass out Bibles to classmates in the cafeteria during lunch — but the principal of Mechanicsburg Area Senior High School allegedly said no, and now a law firm is getting involved.

Jeremy Samek, senior counsel of the Independence Law Center, told WPMT-TV that November’s alleged request denial was the third time in the last two years that Christians in Action student club members have run into problems with the principal. . .

Mechanicsburg Area School District issued the following statement to WPMT in regard to the Bible controversy:

MASD is aware of the concerns presented by the Independence Law Center. We received a letter yesterday from the center alleging that a student group was denied permission to distribute Bibles. MASD respects the rights of students to express themselves and distribute materials. MASD also recognizes that exercise of that right must be limited by the District’s responsibility to maintain an orderly school environment and to protect the rights of all members of the school community. Accordingly, students do have the right to distribution of non-school materials prior to the start of the school day and after the end of the school day if they develop a plan for time, place and manner of distribution that is reviewed and approved by the administration. We plan to investigate the claims set forth in this letter and work with the students in accordance with the law and our local policy.

. . .

“The school has told these students that they cannot distribute Bibles to their classmates at any time during the school day,” he added to Fox News, “but students don’t lose their constitutional rights to speech when they enter the schoolhouse gate. Schools certainly have the right to limit it to non-instructional times and reasonable places but not to institute absolute bans during the school day, which is what they’ve done here.” (Read more from “High Schoolers Want to Give Bibles to Classmates During Lunch — but Weren’t Allowed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Inside the Trump Administration’s Debate Over Expanding Obamacare

. . .Preliminary fiscal analyses of partial expansion proposals suggest the policy has few obvious supporters. Liberals will complain that partial expansion could lead to hundreds of thousands of individuals dropping coverage in states that have already expanded Medicaid. By contrast, conservatives will object to the sizable price tag associated with the policy—because government actuaries believe it will encourage more states to expand Medicaid.

The Times reported that some within the administration—including CMS Administrator Seema Verma and White House Domestic Policy Council Chairman Andrew Bremberg—have embraced the proposal. But if the plan overcomes what the Times characterized as a “furious” internal debate, it may face an even tougher reception outside the White House. . .

After the Supreme Court made Medicaid expansion optional for states as part of its 2012 ruling upholding Obamacare’s individual mandate, the Obama administration issued guidance interpreting that ruling. While the court made expansion optional for states, the Obama administration made it an “all-or-nothing” proposition for them.

Under the 2012 guidance—which remains in effect—if states want to receive the enhanced 90 percent federal match associated with expansion, they must cover the entire expansion population—all able-bodied adults with incomes under 138 percent of the federal poverty level (just under $35,000 for a family of four). If states expand only to some portion of the eligible population, they would only receive their regular Medicaid match of 50-76 percent, not the enhanced 90 percent match.

Because individuals with incomes above 100 percent of the poverty level—but only individuals with incomes above 100 percent of the poverty level—qualify for subsidized coverage on insurance exchanges, states like Arkansas and Massachusetts have applied for waivers to implement a partial expansion. If the Trump administration approves such proposals, Arkansas and other states that have already expanded Medicaid would still receive the 90 percent federal match, while shifting the population with income between 100-138 percent of poverty from Medicaid to exchange coverage. (Read more from “Inside the Trump Administration’s Debate Over Expanding Obamacare” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Zero Trump Mentions at 2019 Golden Globes

Hollywood dispensed with what now constitutes years of tradition and declined to even mention Donald Trump at the Golden Globe Awards on Sunday. Not only was the president left out by hosts Andy Samberg and Sandra Oh, but he also went unmentioned by all the evening’s award recipients.

To be sure, there were a few nods made in Trump’s general direction. “Assassination of Gianni Versace” producer Brad Simpson provided perhaps the most overtly political moment of the night by calling on the audience to “resist in the streets, resist in the ballot box.” Christian Bale managed to get in some quick digs at Dick Cheney and Mitch McConnell. But that was about as direct as anyone got.

This marks the first Trump-free Globes ceremony since 2015. By comparison, both the 2017 and 2018 broadcasts were peppered with rebukes of Trump. Meryl Streep delivered her infamous “football and mixed martial arts” jab at the ceremony two years ago. All the way back in 2016, Ricky Gervais joked that Trump couldn’t wait to deport America Ferrera and Eva Longoria. . .

Either way, I suspect audiences will agree with Samberg, who in a preview of the show contended, “Everyone is depressed, and maybe that’s as good a reason as any that everyone could use a little time to laugh and celebrate. Not to ignore anything, but we spend so much time every day wallowing in a lot of things that are happening in  our world that are really depressing… but there’s also power to being positive and celebratory in the tougher times as well.” (Although to accomplish that feat, Samberg and Oh would have actually had to give us some reasons to laugh.) (Read more from “Zero Trump Mentions at 2019 Golden Globes” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Democrats Tried to Sabotage Roy Moore With Second Fake Facebook Campaign During Alabama Election

By The Blaze. A group of progressive Democrats tried to undermine Roy Moore’s Senate campaign by associating him with alcohol prohibition with a fake Facebook page, hoping to scare off moderate and business-oriented Republican voters, according to The New York Times.

The effort, called “Dry Alabama,” is the second reported online false flag operation by Democrats who sought to weaponize fabricated online information to influence the election.

Matt Osborne, an activist who helped with the effort, justified the tactics by claiming Republicans do the same thing.

“If you don’t do it, you’re fighting with one hand tied behind your back,” Osborne told NYT. “You have a moral imperative to do this—to do whatever it takes.”

About the fake page: Dry Alabama was a Facebook page that was made to look as if it was run by a group of Moore supporters who wanted to outlaw alcohol in Alabama. The issue is somewhat divisive among Alabama Republicans as fewer counties remain dry. (Read more from “Democrats Tried to Sabotage Roy Moore With Second Fake Facebook Campaign During Alabama Election” HERE)

__________________________________________________

Democrats Faked Online Push to Outlaw Alcohol in Alabama Race

By The New York Times. The “Dry Alabama” Facebook page, illustrated with stark images of car wrecks and videos of families ruined by drink, had a blunt message: Alcohol is the devil’s work, and the state should ban it entirely.

Along with a companion Twitter feed, the Facebook page appeared to be the work of Baptist teetotalers who supported the Republican, Roy S. Moore, in the 2017 Alabama Senate race. “Pray for Roy Moore,” one tweet exhorted.

In fact, the Dry Alabama campaign, not previously reported, was the stealth creation of progressive Democrats who were out to defeat Mr. Moore — the second such secret effort to be unmasked. In a political bank shot made in the last two weeks of the campaign, they thought associating Mr. Moore with calls for a statewide alcohol ban would hurt him with moderate, business-oriented Republicans and assist the Democrat, Doug Jones, who won the special election by a hair-thin margin. (Read more from “Democrats Faked Online Push to Outlaw Alcohol in Alabama Race” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

All Four Living Presidents Open up About Their Feelings on Trump’s Border Wall

Last week, President Donald Trump said all four living presidents – Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama – support his push for building a border wall.

“This should have been done by all the presidents that preceded me, and they all know it,” Trump told reporters. “Some of them have told me that we should have done it so, we’re not playing games. We have to do it.” . . .

The Carter Center took to Twitter to release a statement from the former president about his stance on the border wall, saying very clearly he “does not support” Trump’s stance:

“Suggesting that we can build an endless wall along our borders, and blame our challenges on immigrants — that doesn’t just run counter to our history as the world’s melting pot; it contradicts the evidence that our growth and our innovation and our dynamism has always been spurred by our ability to attract strivers from every corner of the globe,” Obama said at Rutgers University in 2016. “That’s how we became America. Why would we want to stop it now?”

The spokesman also said Obama hasn’t spoken to Trump since the inauguration except for a few exchange of words at President George H.W. Bush’s funeral last month. (Read more from “All Four Living Presidents Open up About Their Feelings on Trump’s Border Wall” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE