Trump ‘Very, Very Close’ to Moving on Mexico Deal, With or Without Canada

Canadian officials are running out of time to join the U.S. and Mexico in a trade deal to replace current North American Free Trade Agreement terms, according to an administration source this week.

In a Fox News interview Friday morning, White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett pointed to an Oct. 1 deadline in the ongoing negotiations.

“We’re still talking to Canada, and we’re getting very, very close to the deadline where we’re going to have to move ahead with Mexico all by themselves,” he said.

The Trump administration is fast-tracking the new terms to finalize an agreement before the end of Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto’s term.

Some lawmakers see Canada’s inclusion in a new deal as vital to the preservation of NAFTA framework.

Nieto’s administration has been willing to negotiate with the U.S. and Canada, but leftist president-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador would likely be less open to renegotiated terms.

Hassett placed the onus on Canadian officials he believes are refusing to negotiate in good faith.

“I’m a little surprised that the Canadians haven’t signed up yet,” he said. “They’ve got a really, really good deal that they should be participating in. … I worry that politics in Canada is trumping common sense, because there’s a good deal that was designed by Mexico and the U.S. to appeal to Canada, and they’re not signing up.”

Canadian officials have pointed to a key NAFTA provision affecting its dairy industry as a specific sticking point in the negotiations.

According to Hassett, the fact that Canada has not agreed to the terms has “everybody over here a little bit puzzled.”

Among the terms reached by Mexico and the U.S. so far are requirements that would impact the auto industry by requiring an increased amount — 75 percent — of a vehicle’s parts to be made in North America in order for NAFTA to categorize it as a duty-free product.

The renegotiated agreement would also require that at least 40 percent of all workers producing automotive parts earn the equivalent of $16 per hour or more.

Hassett’s comments this week echoed remarks U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin made last month on the issue of North American trade.

He said that the Trump administration prefers to have Canada as an active participant in the negotiations, but it would be willing to move forward with a bilateral agreement if necessary.

“I think our objective is to try to get Canada on board quickly,” Mnuchin said. “This is a great deal for American workers. If you remember one thing, this deal is about more trade for U.S. companies and goods and services, and that’s what we’re focused on.” (For more from the author of “Trump ‘Very, Very Close’ to Moving on Mexico Deal, With or Without Canada” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hero Cop ‘Ran Toward the Danger,’ Kills Gunman Who Opened Fire at Municipal Building

By The Blaze. A gunman allegedly scheduled for a domestic violence hearing next week opened fire at a western Pennsylvania magistrate’s office Thursday afternoon, police told KDKA-TV.

The man entered the lobby of the Masontown Municipal Building around 2 p.m., police told the station, and added that the shooting took place inside the office of Magisterial District Judge Daniel Shimshock.

But officers from Masontown and German Township entered the lobby and engaged the shooter, KDKA said, adding that the unnamed German Township officer fatally wounded the suspect.

“The German Township police officer ran toward the danger, not away,” District Attorney Richard Bower said in a separate story from the station. “He protected over 30 to 40 people from injury or death.”

Bower added to KDKA that “there were four heroes: [Sgt. R. Scott Miller, German Township Police Chief Dave Hromada, Officer Thomas Obarto], and the officer who engaged the actor and killed him.” (Read more from “Hero Cop ‘Ran Toward the Danger,’ Kills Gunman Who Opened Fire at Municipal Building” HERE)

__________________________________________

Police Shoot, Fatally Wound Fayette Co. Magistrate’s Office Shooting Suspect

By CBS Pittsburgh. Police were called to a shooting at a magistrate’s office in Fayette County Wednesday afternoon.

According to police, the shooting happened inside the office of Magisterial District Judge Daniel Shimshock on East Church Avenue in Masontown.

Five people were shot, including the shooter. One police officer was also among those wounded.

Dozens of people were inside the building at the time, but Shimshock and members of his staff were not injured.

According to police, a male entered the lobby of the Masontown Municipal Building around 2 p.m. and opened fire. (Read more from “Police Shoot, Fatally Wound Fayette Co. Magistrate’s Office Shooting Suspect” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

3rd Person in Room During ‘Kavanaugh Attack’ Comes Forward and Blows Story Apart

The left’s characterization of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is falling apart after another individual identified as being present during the alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh has come forward and rejected the accuser’s story.

In a letter sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California professor Christine Blasey Ford said there were four people besides herself at the party when she was allegedly assaulted by Kavanaugh.

One of those four people, Patrick J. Smyth, a high school classmate of Kavanaugh, provided the Senate Judiciary Committee with a letter rebutting Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh, according to CNS News.

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth said in his statement published by CNN.

Smyth went on to claim “no knowledge” of the party Ford described.

“I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

Smyth also commented on Kavanaugh’s character and his treatment of women.

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women,” Smyth said.

Smyth’s statement makes him the third person to deny Ford’s claims out of the four individuals Ford said were present at the party.

Kavanaugh was the first person to deny Ford’s claims.

“This is a completely false allegation,” Kavanaugh said in a statement on Monday.

“I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone,” Kavanaugh continued, “Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday.”

Kavanaugh also expressed a desire to talk with the Senate Judiciary Committee “in any way,” unlike Ford, who will only testify if she gets an FBI investigation, according to Fox News.

“I am willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the Committee deems appropriate to refute this allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity,” Kavanaugh said.

Ford also identified Kavanaugh’s friend and former classmate, Mark Judge, who denied the allegations as well.

“In fact, I have no memory of this alleged incident,” Judge said in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

Ford’s story seems to be in shambles with three out of four alleged witnesses have said the assault never happened. (For more from the author of “3rd Person in Room During ‘Kavanaugh Attack’ Comes Forward and Blows Story Apart” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s Why Lowering the Refugee Cap Won’t Make a Difference to Our Immigration Crisis

What if I told you that the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) is completing the criminal conspiracy of Central American families to traffic their own teenage kids into this country and unite them with other illegal alien family members? What if I told you many of them have gone on to become gang members and fuel the drug crisis in the country? Now, what if I told you that the Senate voted this week on a bill to fully fund this agency without addressing the policy problem?

Last week, in a document submitted to a court babysitting our border “security,” government lawyers reported that as many as 350 illegal alien minors had parents who either affirmatively declined to be reunited with them or left the country without giving the government notice, as reported by Breitbart. This means that rather than two separate categories crossing the border – family units and unaccompanied alien children (UACs), they are usually the same demographic. All things equal, illegals would like to exploit our border to bring everyone in, but they don’t hesitate to either send their kids here alone or come with them and then leave them here to be resettled with other illegal relatives.

Shockingly, in the budget bill before Congress this week, legislators inserted a provision demanding that the government come up with a strategy to reunite illegal alien families rather than come up with a strategy to end their fleecing of America and endangerment of their own families. As I’ve noted before, almost none of these families are eligible for asylum, and almost none of the unaccompanied alien children are eligible for refugee resettlement status because most of them are self-trafficked by their own families, are not in the country alone, and are actually reunited with other illegal relatives – all of whom should be deported. Yet Congress is fully funding the Office of Refugee Resettlement in this “minibus” bill, even though Trump has cut the number of refugees from abroad.

There is no need for a separate refugee program in this era

Earlier this week, there was a lot of anxiety in the open-borders lobby after the Trump administration announced, pursuant to the annual determination of refugee caps, that it would accept no more than 30,000 refugees this year, down from a 45,000 cap last year. While the number is lower than it has been in recent years, let’s not forget that the entire program is nothing but a handout to private contractors and makes no sense either from an American standpoint or from a humanitarian standpoint.

Most of the refugees are from countries that are very different than America, and the people would do better resettling closer to their homes. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that we could resettle 12 times as many people closer to home with the amount of money we spend to bring them here, line the pockets of the contractors, and create Democrat voters. Moreover, as Mark Krikorian observed, the U.N. only considered 5,634 refugee applicants to be “emergency” or “urgent” for all of 2017. Our cap should be no higher than that.

But there is a broader point to be made. Open-borders advocates want to double-dip with refugee policies because they fail to acknowledge that we have so many other categories of immigration that are similar to refugees. In fact, most of our immigration system is built on chain migration, not skills, whereby existing immigrants, many of whom initially came here through refugee or similar programs, then bring in family members.

There are also thousands of “Special Immigrant Visas” who are brought in from Iraq and Afghanistan every year, many of whom present security risks. They are refugees in all but name only, but aren’t counted against the annual cap set by the president. We also bring in victims of crime under U visas and give de facto refugee treatment to paroled Cubans and Haitians and adjustment of status for Nicaraguans. Then there are the 50,000 brought in under the diversity lottery every year.

The Central American “asylum” invasion is worse than refugee policy

Which brings us back to the bogus asylum invasion at our border. Why should we take in any refugees from what has become Europe’s problem when we have our own “refugee” program for Central Americans flooding our border? And in the case of bogus asylum, it’s worse than refugees, because we don’t bring them in via a controlled process; they come here chaotically and unilaterally. According to the U.N. Refugee Agency, individual asylum applications in the US rose by 27 percent in 2017, topping out at 331,700 new requests, which eclipses Germany’s 198,300. Those numbers are higher this year. More than 400,000 received work permits last year, which means they disappear into our population, even though almost none of them would qualify for asylum if placed before a judge immediately.

Hence, we already take in more refugees than anyone else.

As much as I disagree with the refugee program, I’d take a standard cap of 70,000 vetted refugees any day over the several hundred thousand young males from Central America and other family units coming here against our will and demanding asylum.

So why is Congress funding the ORR at record levels? Legislators are appropriating $1.9 billion (58 percent above the president’s request) with a 30,000-refugee cap, when in 2016 they appropriated $1.6 billion for 85,000. The answer is that instead of bringing in refugees through the traditional route, they are treating all the Central American teenagers like refugees. And those are not counted towards the annual cap. In addition, the minibus bill has a rider demanding that any member of Congress must be let into the detention facilities to interfere with the work of our border agents and intimidate them.

Appallingly, the Senate just voted this week for an $8.4 billion “opioid package” interfering in health care and prescriptions, when the entire problem is illicit drugs being brought in through the very asylum/UAC surge Congress now encourages rather than deters in this budget bill.

Judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of Texas, in a December 2013 order, charged that the Obama administration essentially “successfully complet[ed] the mission of the criminal conspiracy” of drug smugglers to smuggle people over the border on behalf of parents “at significant expense” to taxpayers. He observed that the DHS was taking actions that were “dangerous and unconscionable,” “subject to the whims of evil individuals,” resulting in the “absurd and illogical” outcome of helping “fund the illegal drug cartels which are a very real danger for both citizens of this country and Mexico.”

Hanen pointed out that “time and again, this court has been told by representatives of the government and the defense that cartels control the entire smuggling process.” He also observed that the cartels knew that teenagers would be treated leniently if caught with drugs. He therefore concluded that by dismantling immigration enforcement and promising amnesty, “the government is not only allowing them to fund the illegal and evil activities of these cartels, but is also inspiring them to do so.” In a footnote, Hanen ominously warned about the heroin smuggling that would likely follow, based on past history.

Yet a GOP Congress and administration are allowing all of this to continue unabated while claiming magnanimously to fight “the opioid crisis” and care about “uniting families.” Good night, Orwell. (For more from the author of “Here’s Why Lowering the Refugee Cap Won’t Make a Difference to Our Immigration Crisis” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

MSNBC Host Tweets out Hard-Hitting Question for Kavanaugh, Gets Hilarious Answers

Lawrence O’Donnell, host of MNSBC’s “The Last Word,” posted a series of tweets Wednesday laying out what he asserts are the reasons Brett Kavanaugh’s denials are more dubious than Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations, ultimately leading to his hard-hitting question: “Why isn’t Brett Kavanaugh demanding an FBI investigation? WHY?” O’Donnell got some answers from both the Left and the Right, but probably not the ones he was hoping to get from the latter.

In a rather entertaining series of posts and responses caught by Twitchy, O’Donnell laid out his logic for why he believes Ford’s unsubstantiated allegation over Kavanaugh’s unequivocal denial: “People who make up stories don’t ask the FBI to investigate those stories,” he wrote. He followed up that assertion with the following tweet:

Among the flood of responses were those pointing out that Kavanaugh immediately agreed to testify under oath before Congress, which likewise has serious legal implications:

(Read more from “MSNBC Host Tweets out Hard-Hitting Question for Kavanaugh, Gets Hilarious Answers” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

March for Our Lives Co-Founder Quits, Has Regrets About Things He Said

March For Our Lives co-founder Cameron Kasky told Fox News radio on Wednesday that he has left the organization that he helped create and that he has regrets about some of the things that he has said since he entered the public spotlight.

Kasky told Fox News Radio’s Guy Benson and Marie Harf: “I’m very regretful of a lot of the mistakes that I’ve made along the way.”

“One of the things I never really did was watch myself,” Kasky said. “If I was on a screen I kind of tried to run away from it. I’m not entirely sure why. But, looking back on that it’s like you said, you touched off on this very well in the intro, I’m not going to kick myself for it because I’m 17. Despite the fact that I thought I did at the time, I don’t know everything.” . . .

Kasky said he would redo the conversation that he had with Rubio and that he has plans to meet with him next month where he’ll bring up how he spoke to him during the town hall event.

“This summer when March For Our Lives went on the summer tour that we embarked on, I met that person in Texas who’s got that semi-automatic weapon because that’s how they like to protect their family,” Kasky continued. “I met the 50-some-odd-percent of woman who are pro-life, even though I thought it was preposterous that a woman could be pro-life and not pro-choice at the time. I learned that a lot of our issues politically come from a lack of understanding of other perspectives and also the fact that so often young conservatives and young liberals will go into debate, like I said earlier, trying to beat the other one as opposed to come to an agreement.” (Read more from “March for Our Lives Co-Founder Quits, Has Regrets About Things He Said” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

John Brennan Compares Trump Declassification Order With… Pushing the Nuke Button

John Brennan, the radical-left CIA chief under President Obama, continues his campaign to encourage mutiny against President Trump.

Appearing on MSNBC Thursday morning, Brennan told host Hallie Jackson that he was “very concerned” about President Trump’s order earlier this week to declassify a large amount of material related to the Russia investigation and FISA applications.

Brennan said he is concerned about “exposing intelligence sources and methods as well doing anything that might compromise an ongoing criminal investigation,” referring to the Mueller probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, which has yet to find a single piece of evidence to substantiate Trump-Russia collusion.

Jackson then followed up:

“But the president is allowed to declassify materials. He does have that authority. So how do you square that?”

To which Brennan responded:

“Well, the president has the authority to do a lot of things. It doesn’t mean, if he does it, it’s the right thing to do. Such as going to war. Pushing a button that is going to launch missiles.”

The “button” Brennan is referring to is the president’s nuclear “football,” a briefcase that can be used by the president to authorize a nuclear strike.

Since President Trump entered the Oval Office, Brennan has dedicated his post-government career to undermining the duly elected president and encouraging rebellion within the federal government.

On Tuesday, Brennan appeared on MSNBC and told federal employees in the intelligence community that they have an “obligation” to reject against the president’s orders.

“This is something that I’m hoping that individuals of conscience are going to stop and prevent,” Brennan said of the declassification order, “because I’m concerned that this is just one indication that Mr. Trump is going to increasingly look for steps to take in order to further try to subvert the Mueller investigation.”

“I think that they should continue to push, push, push; if Mr. Trump and the White House does not relent, well, then I think they have some decisions to make, whether or not they’re going to just not follow that direction and be fired, or to resign, but if they really believe that this is going to have serious impact on our national security, law enforcement, and judicial process, they have an obligation, since they took an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States, not to Mr. Trump, to uphold their responsibilities and their agency and departments’ authorities,” he added.

Of course, Brennan does not mention that their “obligation” to the Constitution entails that these bureaucrats follow the orders of the commander in chief, who is the ultimate authority on matters of classification.

While leading the CIA, Brennan played an active role in the massive, unprecedented espionage operation against the Trump campaign and transition team. Given the evidence we already have of Brennan’s role in undermining Trump, it’s very possible that the declassification order could expose documents that further implicate Brennan and his cohorts in the FBI and elsewhere.

In August, the Trump administration revoked Brennan’s security clearance. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders explained that it was necessary to “protect classified information and who has access to it.” (For more from the author of “John Brennan Compares Trump Declassification Order With… Pushing the Nuke Button” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mark Levin’s Blistering Rebuke of the Dems’ Kavanaugh Smears Is Fire

On his radio program Wednesday evening, CRTV host Mark Levin issued a blistering rebuke to the progressive Democrats responsible for smearing Judge Brett Kavanaugh these past few days.

“What you see here, ladies and gentlemen, is a battle between those who support the Constitution and those who don’t,” Levin said. “Those who support constitutionalism and those who support progressivism.”

“Progressives are not compassionate; progressives don’t have big hearts,” Levin continued. “They use people. In the name of people, they destroy people. In the name of the public, they destroy society. They are power-hungry. They are control freaks. They are authoritarians, and you’re seeing it all over TV and all over Congress.”

Listen:

(For more from the author of “Mark Levin’s Blistering Rebuke of the Dems’ Kavanaugh Smears Is Fire” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump: Exposing FBI Could Be One of the ‘Crowning Achievements’ of Presidency

President Donald Trump said that exposing the corruption behind the FBI Russia investigation will be one of the “crowning achievements” of his time in office.

In an interview with The Hill published on Tuesday, Trump also said that he regrets not firing former FBI Director James Comey immediately on his first day on the job, which had been his instinct while still a candidate after seeing how the bureau chief handled the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

The president accused the FBI of misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court to obtain a search warrant in order to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page during the 2016 campaign.

“They know this is one of the great scandals in the history of our country because basically what they did is, they used Carter Page, who nobody even knew, who I feel very badly for, I think he’s been treated very badly,” Trump said. “They used Carter Page as a foil in order to surveil a candidate for the presidency of the United States.”

Regarding the FISA judges, the president said, “It looks to me, just based on your reporting, that they have been misled. I mean, I don’t think we have to go much further than to say that they’ve been misled.”

He further expressed disappointment that the FISA judges apparently have not taken action, presumably based on what has been made public regarding the FBI’s use of the unsubstantiated so-called Trump Russia dossier to obtain the FISA warrant. The dossier was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Trump also addressed his decision that was announced on Monday to release the FISA application of Carter Page, as well as all the text messages concerning the Russia investigation, “without redaction,” from Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI attorney Lisa Page and FBI official Bruce Ohr.

The president said the texts, particularly between Strzok and Page, show that the Russia investigation is bogus.

On Monday morning, Trump tweeted about a Fox News report concerning Lisa Page’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in July during which she stated the FBI had found no evidence of Russia collusion before May 2017, when special counsel Robert Mueller was named to take over the investigation.

“It’s a hoax, beyond a witch hunt,” Trump told The Hill.

He further suggested the “insurance policy” that Strzok texted Page about in August 2016 was the Russia investigation, which was launched during this time frame.

“What we have now is an insurance policy,” the president said. “But it has been totally discredited, even Democrats agree that it has been discredited. They are not going to admit to it, but it has been totally discredited. I think, frankly, more so by text than by documents.”

Trump argued that with the release of the FISA application, texts and other related documents, the public will now be able to see and decide for themselves if top officials within the Obama FBI and Department of Justice were engaged in wrongdoing when they used the apparatus of the federal government to surveil an opposing party candidate’s campaign.

“All I want to do is be transparent,” he said. “I hope to be able put this up as one of my crowning achievements that I was able to … expose something that is truly a cancer in our country.”

Regarding Comey, the president argued the former FBI director’s handling of the Clinton email investigation should have been all the information he needed not to keep Comey on as bureau head.

“If I did one mistake with Comey, I should have fired him before I got here. I should have fired him the day I won the primaries,” he said.

Trump added, “I should have fired him right after the convention, say I don’t want that guy. Or at least fired him the first day on the job. … I would have been better off firing him or putting out a statement that I don’t want him there when I get there.” (For more from the author of “Trump: Exposing FBI Could Be One of the ‘Crowning Achievements’ of Presidency” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sesame Street Creators Answer Question About Bert and Ernie Being Gay. The Left Isn’t Happy

A decades-old controversy received additional fuel this week when a former “Sesame Street” writer confirmed he felt Bert and Ernie represented a same-sex couple on the children’s puppet show when he wrote them.

After Mark Saltzman’s remarks were published by Queerty, the show’s production company issued a statement once again asserting that the show’s puppet characters “do not have a sexual orientation” and were intended to represent a platonic relationship.

“As we have always said, Bert and Ernie are best friends,” Sesame Workshop wrote. “They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves.”

Frank Oz, an early collaborator on the show and a creator of Bert and Ernie, also weighed in to deny the puppets were meant to be gay.

“It seems Mr. Mark Saltzman was asked if Bert & Ernie are gay,” he tweeted. “It’s fine that he feels they are. They’re not, of course. But why that question? Does it really matter? Why the need to define people as only gay? There’s much more to a human being than just straightness or gayness.”

The comment earned widespread criticism among those who felt an identifiable same-sex couple on the show would be an important step toward inclusion.

Oz responded directly to many of those critics, offering his defense of maintaining the friendship Bert and Ernie were originally created to reflect.

As of Tuesday evening, the tweet containing Sesame Workshop’s original statement had been replaced by an update.

“Sesame Street has always stood for inclusion and acceptance,” the company wrote. “It’s a place where people of all cultures and backgrounds are welcome. Bert and Ernie were created to be best friends, and to teach young children that people can get along with those who are very different from themselves.”

That statement earned some praise from those who felt the original statement was insufficiently inclusive.

Oz has continued to tweet on the topic, offering some additional context and revealing that he has learned some important lessons after hearing from those offended by his tone.

“Although it doesn’t matter to me if someone is gay or viewed as gay, I learned it does matter to a great many people who feel they are not represented enough,” Oz wrote. “The Tweet discussion was worth it for me to just learn that.” (For more from the author of “Sesame Street Creators Answer Question About Bert and Ernie Being Gay. The Left Isn’t Happy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.