The Data Suggests Unisex Bathrooms Are a Bonanza to Male Perverts

/0 Comments/in , /by

One year ago in February 2015, the Vancouver Province ran a story on the rise of voyeurism in British Columbia, my home province, with the headline “How can we get men to stop doing this?” The sober reality is that the crime of voyeurism, almost always by males, may be virtually impossible to stop. Voyeurism is an enormous monster that lives in the shadows of our culture, hidden to many, but continually nourished by advancing technology, pervasive pornography, and increasing opportunity.

Voyeurism has been seen as a minor crime historically, but recording technology and victim statements are beginning to change that. One of the voyeurism cases the Province article cited was that of Jonathan Stringer, who hid a video camera in a unisex public washroom in Whistler, BC. One of his victims shared the effect it has had on her: “I have post-traumatic stress disorder from it. I was off work for a couple months, I was having problems sleeping and having weird dreams about being watched. It definitely affected me and made me fear for my safety.” More and more, voyeurism is starting to be recognized for what it is: sexual assault against women.

Advancing technology is also changing how seriously we perceive this crime. Not only is miniaturization making it easier for men to record women, but the fact that pictures and video can be stored, shared, and viewed over and over again, has significantly changed the nature of the crime from the traditional “peeping tom.”

Inherent in the question “How can we get men to stop doing this?” is the question of prevalence. Is voyeurism widespread, or limited to a few scattered predators? A look at the literature and studies on voyeurism reveals surprisingly little. In a day and age where every topic has seemingly been studied in minute detail, there is a glaring paucity of good information on the subject.

But the data that does exist is eye-opening. Templeman (1991) found that no less than 42 percent of college men in a rural sample reported that they had engaged in voyeurism. Bradford et al. (1992) reported that “of 443 adult males studied, 115 admitted to voyeurism” (cited from Krueger, 2016). Rye & Meaney (2007) found that 61 percent of the men in their university sample would engage in voyeurism if the likelihood of getting caught was 25 percent (cited from Krueger, 2016). (Read more from “The Data Suggests Unisex Bathrooms Are a Bonanza to Male Perverts” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Time to Push Back Against Fake Judges Tearing Down the Constitutional Fabric of the Nation

/0 Comments/in , /by

Late yesterday, the three-judge motions panel of the Ninth Circuit, in a per curiam order, denied the federal government’s motion to stay the Temporary Restraining Order issued by a single district court judge from Washington State enjoining enforcement nationwide of President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration and refugees. Primarily in contention were two provisions of the Executive Order: (i) suspending for 90 days the entry of aliens from seven countries (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) and (ii) suspending for 120 days the United States Refugee Admission Program.

Although the policy underlying the President’s Executive Order always is debatable in the public arena, the basic question before the Courts is whether the Executive Order is lawful — that is, does the President have statutory, and Constitutional, unreviewable authority to issue it. That issue was conveniently overlooked by the Courts, who, yet again, preferred to impose their own policy preferences under the guise of a judicial order.

Executive Order. Certainly, it would have been better crafted if the Executive Order had expressly excluded lawful permanent residents, rather than relying on a clarification issued by White House Counsel on that point. And it would have been better if the Executive Order had set out additional information about the threat of terrorism from the seven countries and refugees in general. However, those omissions did not make the exercise of presidential discretion reviewable by the federal court.

After all, as Justice Robert Jackson taught us in his concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952): when a President acts pursuant to express Congressional authority, as here, his power is at its zenith. All that should have been required by the Court was the invocation of the statutory authority for the President’s actions giving him unbridled and unreviewable discretion. At that point, the Court’s role was done. It had no judicial authority to do what it did.

Oral Argument. The quality of advocacy for the United States has been challenged by many commentators — but we think that criticism misses the mark. The Justice Department attorney set out an argument that was fully sufficient to justify the President’s actions, and the Court certainly had before it all that it needed to decide the case properly. However, like many other modern federal judges who believe that they sit as super-legislators, these judges pressed government counsel to present to them the specific basis for the President’s decision, so that they could “rule” as to whether it was sufficient. Since the President made his decision after receiving information received from throughout the defense and intelligence communities, the court had no right to review his exercise of discretion.

Amicus Curiae Briefs. It was apparent that the lawyers developing the case for Washington and Minnesota, and their friends in the open borders community, were active in getting support from a variety of amici curiae technology companies as well as other States. In such cases, the advantage always goes to the party who is initiating the challenge. No Republican state Governor or Attorney General filed an amicus brief supporting the President. In fact, we filed one of only three amicus briefs supporting the President’s Executive Order, ours being filed on behalf of the United States Justice Foundation, Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, English First Foundation, English First, Public Advocate of the United States, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Border Control Foundation, and Policy Analysis Center.

Our brief focused on two issues: the President’s statutory authority to suspend or even bar entry into the United States of any alien or group of aliens, demonstrating that his power has never been successfully challenged — and often has never been challenged at all. Secondly, our brief demonstrated the flaws in the vetting process for refugees, citing a report done by the Obama Department of Homeland Security. Neither of these matters were addressed even in passing by the panel.

Standing. Plaintiff States of Washington and Minneapolis claimed to have standing because they were acting parens patriae for its citizens — an approach that has been repeatedly rejected by federal Courts — and the panel declined to find standing on that basis.

The Plaintiff States also asserted a violation of the Establishment Clause, where the federal courts have virtually automatically found standing by any plaintiff making any accusation, but the panel declined to rely on that ground as well.

Rather, the panel relied on the “proprietary” interests of the States in that they operate state facilities such as universities which would be affected. According to the panel, however, the States have standing to contest the legality and constitutionality of the Trump order because their respective universities “have a mission of ‘global engagement’ and rely on … visiting students, scholars, and faculty to advance their educational goals,” and the Trump order interferes with their travel plans. In other word, the States are claiming, as a legal right, that its global educational policies override the nation’s interest in protecting her people from the threat of terrorism.

Truly, neither State brought a claim of its own, but only (at best) the claim of another. According to declarations filed by the States, two “visiting scholars” and “three prospective employees” — all of whom are subject to the Executive Order will not be able to come to Seattle, Washington. But do they have a legal claim to enter the country? There is nothing in the panel opinion indicating that they have anything but a unilateral expectation, not a right, to enter the United States. Thus, even those individuals do not have standing: they have suffered no legal injury.

Immigration Suspension. The 90-day suspension was made by the President pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(f) which states:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens, or any class of aliens, into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions that he deems appropriate.” [Emphasis added.]

Astonishingly, the panel opinion never even referenced this source of the President’s statutory authority.

Animus. One of the most dangerous “judge-empowering” doctrines that has snuck its way into Fake Constitutional Jurisprudence is the notion of animus. Made popular by Roemer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), this doctrine allows any federal judge to assert moral superiority to legislators, citizens who pass referenda, or even Presidents, and find that they had some “improper” motivation, which authorizes the court to substitute its pure judgment for the “hateful” judgment of legislators, voters, or executive branch officials.

Here, the panel presumed that President Trump was motivated by animus against Moslems, wholly ignoring the obvious fact that Islamic Terrorism is inexorably linked to Islam. And Islam is not just a religion, but also a political system — which denies the authority of a constitutional republic to establish laws that apply to all who reside in the country.

But the judges could have believed that Islam is a religion of peace, and it still should have upheld the Executive Order. The seven countries targeted by the ban had been previously identified as associated with a heightened risk of terrorism pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1187(a)(12), and were thus already excluded from the visa waiver program because of international terrorists threats posed by those nations.

Nevertheless, Section c(g) of Trump’s Executive Order allowed for entry on a case-by-case basis. Although the panel questioned the efficacy of the White House Counsel’s clarification of the Executive Order that it did not apply to immigrants admitted with the privilege of residing permanently in the United States, that already was provided for by 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(20).

The panel decision asserts that no aliens from the seven named countries have engaged in acts of terrorism — presumably based on the judge’s reading of the newspapers, and the fact that the Justice Department did not introduce into the record information that the Administration released publicly during the pendency of the litigation, about threats from individuals from those countries.

Refugee Suspension. The 120-day suspension in the refugee program was made pursuant to the President’s power to oversee that program under 8 U.S.C. Section 1157(a). The number of refugees that may enter the country is set by statute, and may not exceed 50,000, “unless the President ‘determines’ — before the beginning of the fiscal year, and only after ‘appropriate consultation’ with cabinet-level representatives of the President and members of the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House — that the proposed number of refugees is “justified by humanitarian concerns … or is otherwise in the national interest.” 8 U.S.C. Section 1157(d)-(e).

The District Court order included no careful analysis of either the EO or its statutory underpinning. The District Judge granted the plaintiff States request for a TRO on the generalized finding that the States were “likely” to prevail on the merits, that the EO was unlawful, providing no analysis or authority for that conclusion. Although we have seen orders denying relief with such cursory treatment of issues, we cannot recall reading an order imposing a TRO without a careful analysis.

Shifting Burden on Appeal. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit for a stay of that TRO, the burden shifted from the States having to demonstrate the likelihood of winning on the merits to the federal government having to prove that it was likely to prevail on the merits. To that end, the federal government submitted to the court of appeals the claim that, first of all, what President Trump had done was authorized by statute, and second, that the President’s actions did not violate the Constitution, as claimed by the Plaintiff States.

The threshold questions for the court should have been (i) whether President Trump’s action was authorized by Congress, and (ii) whether that the statutes conferred unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens and the ongoing screening refugee process. Yet it never addressed either issue.

Instead, the three-judge panel created a strawman by mischaracterizing the federal government’s claim to be that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are “unreviewable” — even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and procedure.” By posing this broad question, the panel lumped the President’s action to “suspend” for a limited period of time to protect the national interest, with “all executive exercises of immigration authority”:

“The present case … is not about the application of a specifically enumerated congressional policy to the particular facts presented in an individual visa application. Rather, the States are challenging the President’s promulgation of sweeping immigration policy.”

If that were truly the case, then one wonders whether the matter before the courts constitutes a “case” or “controversy” and within the power of the judiciary — or whether the States of Washington and Minnesota should take their beef to Congress.

Throughout the panel opinion, the court insists that it has jurisdiction to determine whether the constitutional rights of persons affected by the EO have been violated and that the federal government has failed to demonstrate that it will prevail against those claims.

First, the panel insists that “[t]he Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel.” (Emphasis added.) But the panel utterly fails to acknowledge that the due process principles of notice and a hearing are not triggered unless and until the person demonstrates that his desire to travel into the United States is a “liberty or property” interest within the meaning of the due process guarantee. As Judge Gorton of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has ruled in denying injunctive relief — there is “no constitutionally protected interest in either obtaining or continuing to possess a visa.” Indeed, as Judge Gorton also has observed, “a non-citizen has no ‘inherent property right in an immigrant visa.’” Thus, he concludes, such a person has no due process rights.

Second, the panel makes a similar mistake in assessing the likelihood of the federal government showing that the Executive Order unconstitutionally constitutes religious discrimination. The panel fails to lay down a predicate that “disfavoring Muslims” from seven named countries discriminates on the basis of religious faith — not nationality. With respect to the President’s power to exclude aliens, there is nothing unconstitutional about a law or ruling based upon a person’s nationality. Singling out seven predominantly Moslem nations, as the Executive Order does here, is a classic example of the use of a “Muslim ban” based on nationality, not on religious faith. However, even if the Executive Order barred entry to the country by alien Muslims as a class, we have been unable to find a single reported federal court decision under 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(f) which supports the proposition that such a determination would be impermissible under federal law.

Additionally, there is nothing in either the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, or the equal protection guarantee that prohibits the special concern for Christians who are being persecuted in Moslem countries and, therefore, given special consideration in the nation’s refugee program. After all, religious persecution is one of the grounds upon which a person may be eligible for refugee status, and the Executive Order does not close the door to affording similar protection of people of different religious faiths.

From the time that the district judge entered his TRO to the day that the Ninth Circuit Motions Panel ruled, this conflict has sharply divided the country, eliciting emotional reactions galore — the most notable of which was President Trump referring to the district judge as a “so-called judge.” The President’s characterization may be crude, but it reflects the views of ordinary Americans who are fed up with a ruling class which thinks it knows better than anyone else how we should live our lives.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

No Longer a Nation of Laws, Ninth Circuit Usurps Presidential Powers on Immigration Ban

/0 Comments/in , , /by

San Francisco’s federal appeals court asserted a novel theory on Thursday to claim jurisdiction over the legal challenge to Executive Order 13769, affirming the lower court’s order halting President Trump’s temporary travel-restriction policy. . .

The Ninth Circuit went on to reject several of the tenuous theories the states of Washington and Minnesota asserted to claim standing to bring this lawsuit. Nonetheless, a three-judge panel of the court adopted one of the novel theories asserted by the state, holding that, “as the operators of state universities, the States may assert not only their own rights to the extent affected by the Executive Order but may also assert the rights of their students and faculty members.” Some of those students are effected by the immigration order.

President Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that Congress has plenary authority over all immigration decisions, and that Congress had delegated complete discretion to the president in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to make such decisions, especially when national security was at stake. . .

[Listen to Joe Miller Hammer the Ninth Circuit:]

The court held that the executive order likely violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, holding that the “Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel”. . .

The court also gave at least some credence to what many considered one of the most tenuous claims in the lawsuit, the one asserting that appearing to prefer Christianity over Islam for immigrants violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. (Read more from “No Longer a Nation of Laws, Ninth Circuit Usurps Presidential Powers on Immigration Ban” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s a Preview of Where Transanity Is Leading Us

/0 Comments/in , , /by

You had to know this was going to happen, and it did, in Scotland. An imprisoned man who identifies as a woman got transferred to a women’s prison, only to be transferred to a men’s prison because he was having sex with the female inmates. Welcome to the world of transanity.

The man in question, referred to in an article on the UK’s Metro only as Paris Green, was found guilty (along with two of his friends) of torturing and murdering another man, for which he was sentenced to at least 18 years in prison. A story on Breitbart gives his original name as Peter Laing, noting that this is not the first time he was accused of inappropriate conduct with female inmates.

Remarkably, in keeping with today’s ridiculous PC journalistic standards, the Metro article refers to Laing/Green in female terms only, with lines like this: “A transgender murderer has been moved from a women’s prison following claims she had sex with female inmates”; and, “She was jailed for 18 years” (my emphasis).

And then, the most telling line of all, from an anonymous source: “The women want sex and Paris is the only person who can give it to them.”

But of course, because Paris is Peter, a biological male, with male private parts and a male sex drive and a male attraction to women. In other words, as the only male inmate in a women’s prison, he’s the obvious (and only) choice for male-female inmate sex. Identifying as a female certainly has its perks.

Truly Transgender — Or Manipulator?

Not surprisingly, the sister of the man killed by Laing/Green questions the sincerity of his female identity, noting, “It’s costing the Prison Service a fortune moving him from jail to jail.” (She’s referring to the fact that this is the second time he’s been moved from a female prison for allegedly having sex with the female inmates. And remember: He has not yet had sex change surgery, so he remains a functionally biological male.)

The bereaved sister added, “The whole thing is a joke. We don’t believe he really wants a sex change. He’s just trying to manipulate the system and the tax payer is footing the bill.”

Of course, only God and Laing/Green know the truth about this. Is he genuinely confused about his gender identity, or is he cynically exploiting the system? In any case, let’s remember that it is transgender activists who constantly remind us that gender identity is different than sexual orientation.

In other words, while a gay man is attracted to other men, a man who identifies as a woman (referred to today as a transgender woman) need not be attracted to men. This means that while identifying as a woman, he is still attracted to women, hence Peter/Paris’s sexual activity with other women.

Naturally, transgender activists have an answer for this as well, telling us that a man who identifies as a woman but is attracted to women is actually a lesbian in a man’s body, in which case his true identity is as a lesbian. Is your head spinning yet?

Back to Reality

Coming back to reality, this unfortunate lesson from the Scottish prison system reminds us of an inconvenient truth that is often ignored in the debate about transgender access to bathrooms and locker rooms.

Let’s say that 16-year-old John identifies as a girl but is heterosexual, and he wants to play on the girls’ sports team and share their bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower stalls (a “right” for which the Obama administration fought vigorously). That means that John, who perhaps wants to be called Jane, will still be attracted to girls — the very ones he’ll be playing with and undressing with and showering with.

This doesn’t mean he’s a sexual predator. It just means that he’s a male teenager, naturally attracted to females, which is one reason why he’s supposed to use the boys’ bathroom, locker room, and shower stalls.

Yet to say this is to be transphobic and insensitive.

Similarly, let’s say that 30-year-old Charlie, who identifies as Charlene but remains a biological, heterosexual male, wants to change in the ladies’ locker room at the YMCA. This means that Charlie will be checking out the ladies there, since he’s heterosexual, and if the women complain to management that they feel uncomfortable, they will be branded troublemakers.

I’m aware, of course, that there are people who struggle deeply with gender identity issues, people who find themselves between a rock and a hard place when it comes to which bathroom or locker room to use, people who are doing their best to fit in and ignore the people looking at them as if they were some kind of freak.

As I’ve said many times before, I do not minimize their struggles and I long to see them find true and lasting wholeness. This recent report from Scotland, however, reminds us of the upside-down world in which we live, one where a biological, heterosexual male who identifies as a woman gets kicked out of a women’s prison for having sex with the female inmates and is still referred to as “she” throughout.

This societal madness must stop. There must surely be a better way. (For more from the author of “Here’s a Preview of Where Transanity Is Leading Us” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Florida GOP Seeks Deathblow to Sanctuary Cities: ‘We Are a Nation of Rules’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republican lawmakers in Florida are taking aim at sanctuary city policies with two bills designed to penalize cities, counties, and elected officials that do not fully cooperate with federal enforcement of immigration law.

According to The Miami Herald, The Rule of Law Adherence Act (SB 786 / HB 697) would implement a number of penalties and fines for state, local, or law enforcement agencies that employ “sanctuary policies.”

The bills would formally define a “sanctuary policy” as any “law, policy, practice, procedure, or custom adopted or permitted … which contravenes or which knowingly prohibits or impedes a law enforcement agency from communicating or cooperating with a federal immigration agency with respect to federal immigration enforcement.”

“What this bill would do is put into policy in the state of Florida the idea that our immigration policies at the federal level should receive cooperative support at the state and local level,” said Rep. Larry Metz, R-Yalaha.

Specific provisions of the legislation would:

Prohibit government entities from adopting sanctuary policies and require any existing ones to be repealed within 90 days;

Require state and local governments and law enforcement agencies to “fully comply” and support federal immigration law and prohibit any efforts to restrict or limit that support;

Require government officials and workers to report “known or probable violations” of the act — under threat of suspension or removal from elected office — and require the attorney general to investigate those reports;

Protect whistle-blowers who report such violations;

Impose a fine of up to $5,000 a day, starting Oct. 1, on any government entity that is found to still have a sanctuary policy;

Allow the governor to remove from office any elected official who is found to have violated the act;

Allow government agencies to be sued should a person who is in the country illegally injure or kill someone as a result of the government entity having a prohibited sanctuary policy; and, withhold state grant funding for five years from any government entity that violates the act.

“The one thing that everybody should know in our country is: We can’t choose which laws we’ll obey or which laws we don’t obey,” said state Sen. Aaron Bean, R-Fernandina Beach. (For more from the author of “Florida GOP Seeks Deathblow to Sanctuary Cities: ‘We Are a Nation of Rules” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Stop the Government-Sponsored Human Trafficking Epidemic in Alaska

/0 Comments/in , /by

I am 71 and have lived in bush Alaska for over 50 years. I have been married 48 years,
and have 5 children, 14 grandchildren and 7 great-grandchildren.

I flew through the Alaska Range today for the sole reason of testifying before you.

During the 27th Legislature I served as vice Chair of the State House HSS Committee.

In 2011, I worked for one of my constituents regarding an OCS concern, and was immediately inundated by distressed families from across the State. The need was andcontinues to be desperate. I thank Rep. Tammie Wilson for her continued efforts to reveal OCS violations.

Children who are in danger certainly need protection. However OCS has a clear history of either not showing up when needed or of brutally destroying families. Some good has been done by OCS, but this is not a spelling test where 60% is a passing grade. OCS has been unaccountable and untouchable, with practices unconscionable. Please allow me to cite a few examples from my many related experiences.

• Responsible leaders such as a health professional east of Glennallen told me OCS workers and the local magistrate worked together to cherry-pick their cases, ignoring some egregious situations while targeting certain families.

• A community leader in Pilot Station told me she had been calling OCS for over six months regarding a child in danger and could not get help.

• A responsible mature couple in Wasilla told me they tried taking in foster children. They said they enjoyed the children, but dealing with OCS was so insane they would never consider having foster children ever again.

• A grandfather from the northwest coast of Alaska tried to get custody of his three grandchildren that had been taken from his daughter. In desperation, he sold his house, and exhausted the $30K equity in a failed attempt to secure his grandchildren from OCS. When I had a meeting with Director Christy Lawton in Fairbanks regarding his situation, I was told “He was noncompliant.” My response was, “Since when is total compliance with you a prerequisite for good parenting skills?”

• OCS workers, the GALs (guardian ad litems) and court officials are paid state professionals who are quite accustomed to working together. For most families, OCS intrusion is bewilderingly unfamiliar with no means of resolution. The State Ombudsman’s office, who is supposed to defend citizenry against government intrusion, was defunded to the point of worthlessness over a decade ago. Once children are taken by OCS, even Liam Neeson would have a hard time getting them back.

• When concerned family members or even Legislators try to find out what is going on they are kept at bay by 1” of plexiglass. An Anchorage mother tried to get her two children back for many, many years. OCS had given her children to a woman that literally starved them and kept them chained up. That documented case was made public in the Anchorage media, but two years later, that adoptive, abusive OCS mother still had legal custody of the children and the dedicated biological mother could not contact them! I went with that mother to the OCS office in Anchorage and waited one hour-forty-five minutes attempting to get ROI (release of information) paperwork so the mother could give me legal access to the information regarding her case. The OCS office refused to give us the paperwork which is supposed to be freely available. While waiting, two OCS workers separately called the mother aside and spoke quite rudely to her. I later told OCS Director Christy Lawton about the rebuff, and she admitted that we should have been given the ROI paperwork, but I was not able to get any farther on that case. I was neither the first nor the last Representative who failed in a efforts to break the OCS stronghold.

• Recently in McGrath, an OCS approved home was given a 13 year old girl. For an extended period of time that family allowed her 19 year old boyfriend to move in and stay in the same bedroom. The OCS office was a half of a mile away and most of the community was aware of the situation. The OCS worker did absolutely nothing until pressured by community members. She was later fired, I was told for long-term substance abuse.

• In 2012 Rep. Wes Keller, Chairman of HSS, conducted a public hearing with HSS Commissioner Streur in Wasilla. As vice Chair of HSS, I attended that meeting. Many aggrieved families testified. Commissioner Streur appeared to listen, and said “Game on.” But when I followed up with the families, I discovered that none of them had been contacted after that meeting and absolutely nothing had been resolved for the parents.

• It is the assignment of the GAL (guardian-ad-litem) under the Dept. of Admin. to focus exclusively on the safety of the child. It is, in theory, the function of OCS to restore families. I saw several situations where the GAL pleaded for the child to be returned to the family, yet OCS was adamantly opposed, as the whole focus has been to seize and adopt out the children.

• A grandmother from the mid-west with a Master’s degree is a professional social worker in her own state. I spent several hours with her in the Valley. She was articulate, intelligent and seemed completely responsible. Her Alaskan daughter had not been a good mother, so the grandmother took the grandchildren to stay with her in the mid-west. She later thought it right that the children have contact with the father’s family, and brought the children to Alaska on a short visit. OCS seized the children and later managed to adopt them out to strangers despite the grandmother’s best efforts. When I asked her what the solution was, she immediately said, “Record all conversations!” She said OCS workers lie constantly in and out of court, and without recording all conversations there is no recourse.

• OCS workers commonly extort parents, “If you don’t relinquish your parental rights to these children, then we will seize the others.” Not understanding their rights, the intimidated parents do so and never see their children again. One mother told me that OCS assured her that her children were better off with their paternal grandparents, and that she would have free access to her children if she relinquished her parental rights. She complied and the children were moved out of state within two weeks. Multiple tactics are used to get uninformed parents to relinquish parental rights.

• The same mother was previously told that she had to attend training in Anchorage in order to keep her children, but she had no job, no housing, no transportation in Anchorage. Her children were taken away as there was no way for her to take that training in her village. I arranged for that mother to have an interview with Governor Parnell’s Legislative Liaison, Heather Hebdon, in the Anchorage LIO, but the 45 minute meeting produced no results for that mother.

• Instead of working with ICWA, OCS has been adversarial and has gone out of its way to keep village people uninformed about the purpose and legal authority granted by ICWA. At the same time, the criminal justice system in western Alaska is so broken that many village people are saddled with boundary crimes as they have had to plea-bargain out of exaggerated allegations and impossible bail requirements. Those families will never be able to get custody of a related family member even if they maintain a good, loving home.

• Extreme turnover among OCS staff members statewide has produced inconsistent interpretation and implementation of OCS regulations.

I understand that families can say absolutely anything they want, true, false, or exaggerated, while OCS must outwardly appear professional. There are multiple facets of all situations. It is not until you get to the third or fourth layer that the whole truth starts to emerge. Families do not attract OCS attention without having some form of functional issues. However, as I told Commissioner Struer in person, “You can’t fix dysfunction with worse dysfunction. OCS is more dysfunctional than the families they purportedly restore.”

Over a long period of time, State government has been extremely non-responsive to the cries of the people. How unresponsive? As a State Representative, I told Governor Parnell, in the presence of Heather Hebdon, that one of my constituents had told me he murdered seven people. That man told me who he murdered and how he murdered them. Governor Parnell’s response was identical to that of over a dozen people in state government including the Commissioner of Public Safety… absolute… extended… dead… silence. Pleas regarding OCS transgressions have fallen on the same deaf ears.

The anecdotes I have cited sound exaggerated, incredible, even impossible, yet it is that incredulity that has allowed the transgressions to continue in plain sight. “Certainly, this couldn’t be true!”

I know there are concerned and responsible workers within the OCS operation, but I also believe that a large number, and perhaps majority, would end up behind bars if the 1” of plexiglass and impenetrable wall of “confidentiality” were removed.

Solutions:

1) To stop human trafficking in Alaska, start by dismantling OCS. A rigorous yet clear, informative, positive, restorative process must be created for families to follow whom have been identified as lacking good parenting skills. Create a Restoration Handbook for families needing help including clear information regarding parents’ rights.

2) GAL’s must be held accountable as well. Biased and inept GAL’s also exist.

3) Malfeasance and outright perjury by OCS workers and GAL’s should constitute a felony with the same sentence as aggravated kidnapping because the result is identical: family members are stolen and scores of hearts are scarred for life.

4) The authority and resources of ICWA should be maximized in villages.

5) All conversations with parents must be recorded and digital copies provided for use in appeal processes.

6) All OCS activities within the statute of limitations should be seriously investigated
and human rights violations prosecuted to the full extent of the existing law, with
guilty OCS workers doing actual prison time. Prove to the wounded families and all
the people of Alaska that reform is genuine.

In sum, OCS is an evil entity whose reign must end, at least in current form. For those who think they are not impacted by current OCS issues, the question arises- If government can seize children without accountability for alleged “abuse,” who then defines abuse? Is my personal belief system or your personal belief system abusive? If not today, could it be tomorrow?

Family is the fundamental inviolable structure in a stable society. Healthy family values must be nurtured, encouraged and defended.

Thank you for your attention. Please fully support Rep. Wilson’s efforts.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Terror Sanctions Would Strike at the Heart of Iran’s War Machine

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump’s administration is mulling designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, Reuters reports.

The IRGC is one military force of the Islamic Republic of Iran which reports directly to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. The IRGC is charged with training and arming terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, and deploying troops to places like Syria or Iraq.

Trump’s order would not immediately designate the IRGC a terrorist organization, but would instead instruct the Department of State to review current policy. The Department of the Treasury in 2007 sanctioned elements of the IRGC “entities and individuals engaged in or supporting proliferation and terrorism.”

Trump’s order would likely rile Iran’s current ruling elite, further increasing tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Increased sanctions on Iran could even lead to Iran pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal.

Trump also sanctioned Iran Friday for conducting missile tests in violation of United Nations sanctions in late January. Trump has repeatedly blamed the Obama administration for failing to curb Iran’s increasingly aggressive ballistic missile tests and nefarious activity after the signing of the 2015 nuclear deal. IRGC terrorist designation would also fit with National Security Advisor Mike Flynn’s warning that Iran is “on notice.” (Read more from “New Terror Sanctions Would Strike at the Heart of Iran’s War Machine” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former Prisoner Now Pastor Forgives and Asks God to Bless His Son’s Killer

/0 Comments/in , /by

Nelson Vargas’ father was an abusive man. He beat Nelson and his seven brothers and sisters. When Nelson was 13 years old, his father threw him out on the street.

The young teenager slept in cars and wherever he could find a place. The need to have a family led him into gangs and eventually into selling drugs. He ended up in prison for 7 years, but that didn’t keep him clean. When he got out, he picked up where he left off.

One night he met a girl in a club — the daughter of a strong Christian woman. When he went to meet his new girlfriend’s mother at her church, he also met Jesus. Years later, he would lean hard on the Lord when his son was killed, praying for his son’s killer to meet the Lord, too. That prayer was answered — with an unusual request.

Carlos’ Story

Carlos Colon was raised in Chicago, along with two half-brothers, by a single mom. Like Nelson, he was involved in a gang and drugs, which eventually led to prison for him as well. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison for a gang retaliation murder.

Ten years into his sentence, he found Jesus. “After I turned my life over to the Lord, I prayed on it, and I said, ‘Lord, I would love for you to restore that which the enemy has broken,’” said Carlos. “I wanted forgiveness.” He began to pray for an opportunity to meet the family of the man he killed so he could ask for their forgiveness.

“Of course, I had a big example of what it was to be forgiven because of what Christ did for us. I know my sins placed Him on the cross. And yet, I was still asking God, ‘I would love to reach out, I would love for You to make this possible where I could meet [the victim’s family].’”

Radical Time Out (RTO)

Shortly after leaving prison, Carlos began attending RTO, or Radical Time Out, a group that ministers to people who have been in prison and their families. He’d heard about a man who had given his testimony and asked about him. “Is his name Nelson Vargas?” He asked a friend. “Yes,” said the friend. “How did you know?” Carlos knew then that the man who gave the testimony was the father of the man he’d killed.

Carlos asked the ministry coordinator for RTO, Nephtali Matta, to set up a meeting between the men. Nephtali suggested that he and Carlos approach Nelson carefully. “He said … ‘Let’s see what God does. I’m going to set up a meeting with him and if the Lord wills it, I will ask him. I will mention you to him and tell him that you’re a part of RTO.’”

Who Am I Not to Forgive?

It wasn’t easy for Nelson. But after he thought about it, he explained to his wife that “’I’m coming from the same lifestyle, the same environment, and God forgave me. And I said then, ‘Who am I not to forgive?’”

The day the two men met Nelson was shaking and sweaty, the reality of meeting the man who killed his son hit him hard. Carlos drove around the church, scared of meeting Nelson, too. But they met in a small room upstairs. Nelson’s wife embraced Carlos, who cried and asked for her forgiveness. Then Nelson’s oldest son hugged Carlos. When Carlos asked Nelson for a hug, Nelson embraced him, telling Carlos that the man who killed his son was now his own son.

But the miracle of forgiveness didn’t stop there. Nelson began praying for Carlos and asked God to bless Carlos’ family, marriage and his children. Then Nelson put his hand on Carlos’ shoulder and began to pray over him. When finished, he blessed him, saying “May the peace of God be upon you, and His face … shine upon you in the name of Jesus Christ … and I accept your apology.”

The men shared hugs and tears. Their meeting in itself a testament to the power of God in the lives of His children. Watch the video of the meeting below.

(For more from the author of “Former Prisoner Now Pastor Forgives and Asks God to Bless His Son’s Killer” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Rate of Babies Born Addicted to Opioids Is Skyrocketing

/0 Comments/in , /by

The rate of babies born addicted to opioids increased by 538 percent between 2006 and 2015 in Missouri, according to a disturbing new study warning the problem is rapidly getting worse.

At least eight in every 1,000 babies born will now suffer opioid withdrawals in the state, according to a report released by the Missouri Hospital Association Tuesday. Medical experts say the situation is rapidly deteriorating, driven by the national opioid epidemic and the continued over-prescribing of pain medication to expecting mothers, reports Fox 4.

Babies born with opioid dependence are more prone to seizures, will have trouble feeding and cry excessively in their first few days.

“I think it goes back to how we’ve been prescribing opioids to adults particularly to pregnant mothers,” Dr. Krishna Dummula, a neonatologist at the University of Kansas Hospital, told Fox 4. “The threshold to treat pain has dramatically gone down over the years, which is why you’ve seen a five-fold increase in the amount of expecting mothers being on opioid medications of some sort.”

Officials in some states are moving to place greater limits on the number of opioids doctors are allowed to prescribe and a stricter system for tracking patients, in an effort to limit doctor shopping. Republican Gov. Larry Hogan in Maryland is the latest to signal he will press the legislature for a bill placing limits on the number of opioid prescriptions a doctor can write. (Read more from “The Rate of Babies Born Addicted to Opioids Is Skyrocketing” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Appeals Court Keeps Freeze on Trump’s Refugee Order

/0 Comments/in , /by

A federal appeals court Thursday night kept a freeze on President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting refugee resettlement and other forms of legal immigration, meaning those previously blocked from traveling to the U.S. under the action can continue to enter the country as the case makes it way through the legal system.

A three-judge panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco unanimously rejected the government’s assertion that the suspension of the order imperils national security, and ruled that the suing states would suffer “irreparable harms” if travel suspension could carry on.

“The states have offered ample evidence that if the executive order were reinstated even temporarily, it would substantially injure the states and multiple other parties interested in the proceeding,” the court’s ruling stated.

The judges on the Ninth Circuit panel were Judge Michelle T. Friedland, appointed by President Barack Obama; Judge William C. Canby Jr., appointed by President Jimmy Carter; and Judge Richard R. Clifton, appointed by President George W. Bush.

The ruling was focused on the narrow question of whether Trump’s executive order should be frozen while courts consider its lawfulness. The government could now ask the Supreme Court to lift the stay of the order, but the ideologically-split high court is down a member, and a 4-4 ruling would leave the appeals court decision in place.

Trump quickly turned to Twitter to denounce the decision, writing:

Kellyanne Conway, a counselor to the president, later said in an interview with Fox News that the administration “is fully confident” they will ultimately win in court.

“This ruling does not affects the merits at all,” Conway said. “It is an interim ruling, and we are fully confident that now that we will get our day in court and have an opportunity to argue this on the merits that we will prevail.”

Trump’s executive order, signed Jan. 27, bans Syrian refugees from the U.S. indefinitely, imposes a four-month suspension on all refugee admissions from anywhere in the world, and bars for 90 days people from seven countries the Obama administration and Congress had designated as posing risks of terrorism.

Those countries are Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Somalia.

The Trump administration received widespread criticism early on for its seemingly chaotic and uneven implementation of the order.

After facing legal challenges, the government clarified the order does not apply to green-card holders — or legal permanent residents — and it granted waivers to Iraqis who assisted the U.S. military, and refugees who had already been screened prior to the order being signed.

The courts usually defer to the executive branch on issues of national security and immigration policy.

Indeed, federal immigration law states that if the president finds “the entry of any aliens” would be “detrimental” to the country’s interests, he can impose restrictions.

But the appeals court asserted in its ruling that there are checks on these powers. The judges said the government had not provided enough evidence to support a need for the travel restrictions.

“The government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches — an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence,” the judges wrote. “Instead, the government has taken the position that the president’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections … There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”

Hans van Spakovksy, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, contended that the court overstepped its bounds.

“This decision has as little basis in the law as the original decision by the district court judge,” van Spakovsky said. “The federal courts are in essence refusing to recognize or acknowledge the authority given to the president by Congress to suspend the entry of aliens into the U.S. The very idea that any foreigner has any constitutional or statutory right to be admitted to the U.S. is absurd. This is just another sign of overbearing federal courts grabbing power from the legislative and executive branches in violation of basic separation of powers principles.”

Other legal experts agreed with the court that Trump’s order went too far.

Lawsuits around the country have alleged that Trump’s order violates the constitution by intentionally punishing Muslims, and many trial courts blocked aspects of the president’s order.

The Trump administration rejected charges of religious intent, noting that most Muslim-majority countries were not included in the order.

The 9th Circuit appeals court was ruling on a decision issued in the broadest of the trial court rulings. On Feb. 3, Judge James Robart, a federal judge in Seattle appointed by President George W. Bush, issued a temporary restraining order requiring a nationwide halt to Trump’s order — prohibiting federal employees from enforcing it — in a decision that contained little reasoning.

The states of Washington and Minnesota had brought the suit, arguing the executive order harms the state’s residents in areas of employment, education, business, and family relations.

Hundreds of travelers who are citizens of the seven targeted countries have come to the U.S. since Robart issued his order, and those that have been screened can continue to travel here at least until the courts rule on the legality of Trump’s order.

Full court proceedings on the legality of Trump’s order are expected to take months, and with multiple appeals it could take more than year before the courts make a final decision. (For more from the author of “Appeals Court Keeps Freeze on Trump’s Refugee Order” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.