Brat: 5 Ways the Next Congress Can Protect Gun Rights

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Obama’s famous words on executive actions, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone” was not reflective of a temporary mindset. No, this is how all future liberal presidents plan to govern. Hillary Clinton, if elected president, will need to be checked by a Republican Congress in every issue area. She will especially need to be checked on the issue of firearms.

Hillary Clinton sadly misunderstands our fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Earlier this year, Mrs. Clinton remarked, “I do support comprehensive background checks, and to close the gun show loophole, and the online loophole, and what’s call the Charleston loophole, and to prevent people on the no-fly list from getting guns.” Americans are rightfully concerned that if Congress continues to miss opportunities to pass pro-gun related policy, one president can forever change our Second Amendment.

The president’s increasingly large share of power, through agencies and departments, threatens our very republic. In order to safeguard our liberties against not only future presidents, but against the rulemaking process, Republicans in Congress need to have an agenda.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the many great ideas our country was founded upon. Our founders envisioned the right for we the people to privately keep and bear arms.

Most on the Left, and some on the Right, hold contempt for the Second Amendment and would love to see it further restricted. The Left finds it inconceivable that citizens should be able to own firearms.

I hold the view that the individual right to own a firearm is protected by our Second Amendment. The founders were specific in their language when the words “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

As the Left continues to beat the drum of gun control, few on the Right have laid out an agenda to further protect and advance gun rights. If the Republican-controlled House wants to continue to fight for gun rights and prohibit the next presidential administration from over stepping their Constitutional restraints, the House should move forward on a plan to do so. Here are just some of the ways Congress can take back their Constitutional obligation of legislating.

First, the House should take up and pass Concealed Carry Reciprocity. There were two such bills in the House this Congress, H.R. 923 the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act” sponsored by retiring Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind. (B, 80%) and H.R. 986 the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act” sponsored by Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C. (D, 61%). Both bills, of which I am a cosponsor, would dramatically expand the right of concealed carry permit holders. Gun owners should not have to seek permission to exercise their constitutionally protected rights.

Second, the House should take up and pass H.R. 2001, the “Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act” sponsored by Jeff Miller, R-Fla. (C, 73%), similar legislation that provides Veterans due process protections, or restrict federal funds from being used by the Veterans Administration (VA) to categorize individuals as “mentally defective”. The VA has been using legal definitions to disarm lawful veteran firearm owners. Under current law, when a veteran has a fiduciary appointed to manage their benefits, the VA deems those to be “mentally defective.” The VA has been reporting to the National Criminal Background Check System (NICS) this list of veterans which makes it illegal for them to own a firearm. The practice of stripping veterans from owning firearms is inconceivable and should be stopped.

Third, Congress should reel in the administrative state by passing H.R. 2710 the “Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act” sponsored by Rob Bishop, R-Utah (D, 65%). According to the sponsor, “This bill will reign in the Obama Administration and the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives]. The ATF has attempted to ban ammunition used in the popular AR-15 rifle. The bill will eliminate the ATF’s illegitimate authority to prohibit this .223 caliber ammunition. This legislation will also eliminate ambiguity in current code that could allow the ATF and the Administration to restrict certain types of shotgun shells that are used for self-defense.” Any presidential administration should not be using executive orders or directives from agencies to circumvent Congress. Passing legislation to reign in Article 1 powers and protect the Second Amendment should be a no brainer.

Fourth, block any and all attempts to pass legislation that could jeopardize individual’s due process through secret government watch lists. There has been a substantial push from some in Congress to ban the ownership of firearms for those on terrorist watch lists. Terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms. Terrorists caught trying to purchase a firearm should be immediately taken to court, the transfer of the firearm should be blocked, and the terrorist arrested — end of story. At the same time, wrongfully listed Americans, like Representative Tom McClintock, R-Calif. (B, 85%) should not be denied their right to purchase a firearm. Banning people who are on secret government watch lists from owning firearms is not the solution. American’s right to due process needs to be protected.

Fifth, the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Justice just recently released a report titled, “Audit of the Handling of Firearms Purchases Denials Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.” As the title suggests, the report identifies just how the DOJ handles occurrences where a firearm transfer has been delayed or denied. The report brings to light something pro-gun supporters have been saying for a while: the DOJ has the tools to prosecute criminals, it’s just not interested in using them. If, according to anti-gun politicians and organizations, everyone who is denied the transfer of a firearm as a result of a NICS denial is a dangerous person, why is the DOJ not interested in enforcing current law? Anti-gun politicians and presidential administrations can’t call for the expansion of the NICS system, but then neglect their duty to enforce current law. Anti-gun politicians simply want to make it harder for lawful citizens to own firearms. The House should be encouraging the administration and the Attorney General to faithfully execute the laws on the books.

It’s long past time for Republicans in Congress to advance an agenda that is not dictated by K-Street and wealthy elites. Americans are hungry for Republicans to stand up and fight on issues that they care about. It is without question that our fundamental Second Amendment right is one of those issues. (For more from the author of “Brat: 5 Ways the Next Congress Can Protect Gun Rights” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Refugee and Asylum Crisis: ‘Vetted’ Iraqi Refugee Pleads Guilty to Supporting ISIS

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last month, Francis Taylor, the DHS Under Secretary of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, told the House Committee on Homeland Security that “refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States.” Well, earlier this week, an Iraqi refugee plead guilty in federal court on charges of attempting to give material support to the Islamic State. If one man can evade the “highest level of security checks,” time will only tell how many others pose a security risk.

In January, Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, 24, who was brought here as a refugee in 2009, was arrested in Houston on charges of attempting to provide material support to ISIS. According to the plea agreement in court this week, Al Hardan wanted to blow up two malls in the Houston area. “I want to blow myself up. I want to travel with the Mujahidin. I want to travel to be with those who are against America. I am against America,” said Al Hardan, according to the local CBS affiliate. According to the FBI special agent involved in the case, Al Hardan was working with another Iraqi refugee, Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, 23, who was brought in as a refugee in October 2012 and just 13 months later allegedly flew to Syria to fight for terror groups in the warn-torn country. Al-Jayab is in jail in Chicago awaiting trial.

That is some vetting system we have in place. Al-Jayab allegedly wrote to a friend last year that “America will not isolate me from my Islamic duty.” But rest easy, we are promised that the over 150,000 Muslim immigrants we will bring in this year alone will easily assimilate into American culture.

According to the State Department’s refugee database, America has admitted roughly 135,000 Iraqi refugees since FY 2008 — with no sign of the pace abating. Ever since Congress gave Obama a blank check for his refugee increase last month, Obama has already accelerated the pace of Syrian refugees on top of the existing flow of Iraqi refugees. The reality is that even if the administration had a solid vetting system in place — which they don’t — there is no way to vet a mentality within Sharia law. How many more of these individuals subscribe to the mindset of “America will not isolate me from my Islamic duty?” And this is not even a belief the administration cares to weed out through social media.

What is evidenced from this case in Houston is that it doesn’t take many bad apples to wreak havoc on our homeland. Al Hardan taught himself how to make bombs and use automatic weapons, all for the purpose of large-scale attacks .

In addition to the gaping security hole in our refugee program, Obama’s other legacy has been the destruction of the even more perilous asylum process. While refugees are processed overseas, asylum seekers are able to show up on our shores and declare a credible fear of persecution even when their claim is specious. A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies shows that applications for asylum seekers have increased ten-fold since 2009! According to Jessica Vaughn, 90 percent of these applications have been approved, even though many of them have traditionally been rejected due to fraud. Yet, thanks to Obama’s illegal executive action granting asylum-seekers parole pending the outcome of their application (which is usually approved), instead of keeping them in custody as the law dictates, our country has become a magnate for asylum seekers. Although most of the asylum seekers are from Central America, there are concerns about Middle Easterners travelling to Central American countries via Greece and applying for asylum there. The U.S. Southern Command admitted to at least 30,000 “from countries of terrorist concern” crossing over our southern border in 2016. (For more from the author of “The Refugee and Asylum Crisis: ‘Vetted’ Iraqi Refugee Pleads Guilty to Supporting ISIS ” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What the US Needs to Do About Russia’s Cyberattacks

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. finally is ramping up its response to Russian cyberattacks. Good.

The bad news is our response shows how ill thought-out both our strategy toward Russia and our policies for retaliating against malicious cyber operations are.

Russia has been linked to many cyber incidents, most notably the hack of the Democratic National Committee and subsequent email leak that led to the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., as party chairman.

Vice President Joe Biden, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, and other parts of the U.S. intelligence community now publicly blame Russia for these breaches.

Russia’s cyber aggression recently has been aimed at the U.S. presidential election, making many Americans concerned about Russian interference in our political system. Indeed, that’s the point: Russia long has used information and psychological warfare to attack and undermine those who oppose it.

In an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd recorded Oct. 13, Biden said an upcoming retaliatory strike “will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact.”

The vice president said he hoped it would go unnoticed by the American public. Openly hinting that a covert action soon may be underway probably wasn’t the best decision, though.

The United States has indicted hackers from China and Iran in the recent past.

In 2014, the Justice Department filed charges against five Chinese military hackers for computer hacking and economic espionage. It was the first time in American history that the government charged a state actor for that type of hacking.

In March 2016, the government charged seven Iranian hackers for conducting a coordinated campaign of cyberattacks against the U.S. financial sector.

But while indicting hackers is a step in the right direction, these limited responses from the U.S. are not effectively deterring countries such as Russia.

So it’s good to see the Obama administration seriously contemplating how to retaliate for Russian aggression in cyberspace. However, it already should have had a strategy in place for how it would respond. The U.S. has faced ever-increasing cyberespionage, breaches, and attacks over the past decade, but does not yet know what it will do.

The response from the U.S. should have been as swift as possible, using one of many tools at our disposal: cyber action of our own, legal action, sanctions, increased support to nations threatened by Russia, and so on. But better late than never.

And this should not be a one-time deal. The U.S. should make this type of retaliation a more regular occurrence.

While retaliation and providing evidence to justify it must be balanced with keeping intelligence secrets, the U.S. has done little to publicly push back against bad actors. More must be done.

Nor should the U.S. be alone in this effort. The U.S. should coordinate with allies and other partners affected by malicious cyber operations in pushing back against the nations behind that aggression. More effective responses will help deter these nations from acting so aggressively in the first place.

When foreign governments compromise our nation’s cybersecurity, the United States cannot rely on words or speeches as deterrence. A firm response sends a clear message and conveys American resolve. (For more from the author of “What the US Needs to Do About Russia’s Cyberattacks” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Voters to Decide Legality of Physician-Assisted Suicide in Colorado

/0 Comments/in , /by

Colorado could become the sixth state to make physician-assisted suicide legal when voters go the polls next month.

Called Proposition 106, the ballot question in Colorado would allow a “terminally ill individual” to request and self-administer “aid-in-dying medication” as a way to end his or her life voluntarily. Whoever seeks assisted suicide would have to have a prognosis to live six months or less.

Jeff Hunt, director of the Centennial Institute, a conservative think tank affiliated with Colorado Christian University, is leading the fight against the ballot initiative.

A Colorado-based group called Compassion & Choices “has been trying to push this measure through for the past two years,” Hunt said in a phone interview with The Daily Signal. “This measure has failed because it has faced opposition from both Democrats and Republicans who realize that it is bad for the state of Colorado.”

Compassion & Choices describes itself as an organization that campaigns for expanding “end-of-life options,” including what some call the right to die.

“For most people with a terminal illness, hospice and palliative care are the right fit,” Holly Armstrong, spokeswoman for the campaign in Colorado, said in a statement to The Daily Signal, adding:

But sometimes even the best care cannot relieve pain and suffering. People in that situation should have a range of options for treatment.

Physician-assisted suicide is legal in California, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Montana.

While many see it as a way to end suffering, Hunt told The Daily Signal, the implications of the practice go much further.

“Doctor-assisted suicide is sold as a personal decision to end suffering at the end of a person’s life,” he said. “Those pushing for its legalization say that it allows a terminally ill patient in his or her very last days to part with loved ones in peace.”

If passed, the initiative would amend Colorado law to allow physician-assisted suicide.

What supporters of Proposition 106 are not saying, Hunt said, is that, if passed, the measure would affect many more people than those who request the procedure. He said:

In Oregon and Washington state, where physician-assisted suicide is already legal, individuals with terminal illnesses are getting letters from their insurance companies that are saying, ‘Your medication is too expensive for us to continue your coverage. However, we will pay the $100 for you to terminate your life through doctor-assisted suicide.’

In the states where physician-assisted suicide is already legal, Hunt said, the medical and insurance communities are restricting the choice to live. This should not be the case at all, he said, due to the advanced nature of hospice care today.

“The hospice community has come a long way in providing great hospice care for those who are in their very last stages in life. Walking down this path of legalization of doctor-assisted suicide is dangerous for Colorado,” he said.

Hunt said Proposition 106 also singles out the disabled.

“Organizations who advocate for the disabled are especially against the measure because the disabled community is especially targeted by this measure,” he said.

Hunt also noted a lack of oversight, saying:

With doctor-assisted suicide, there is no oversight or review from an outside party. The only oversight or review that occurs is from the doctor who is administering the death.

Hunt cited a 2005 statement from Dr. Katrina Hedberg, state epidemiologist and health officer in the Oregon Public Health Division, saying his concerns echo hers: “We are not given the resources to investigate [assisted-suicide cases] and not only do we not have the resources to do it, but we do not have any legal authority to insert ourselves.”

Melody Wood, a research assistant in the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, said legalization is ripe for abuse.

“Physician-assisted suicide is bad policy that corrupts the practice of medicine,” Wood said. “Assisted suicide laws lead to the marginalization of the weak and persons with disabilities, and can easily be abused. Those nearing the end of their lives should be treated with true compassion and appropriate care, not told that they would be better off dead.”

Hunt said Colorado’s younger population tends to be more favorable toward legalizing physician-assisted suicide, while older residents increasingly are against it.

“If young people are already pro-life, they are very much opposed to this bill,” he said. “General polling shows that the younger population is more supportive of it. However, the older they get, the more people oppose it, because they see the implications it will have on the state of Colorado.”

Hunt said the state’s churches and other religious organizations are sharing their positions on Proposition 106.

“The faith community is working together to educate their respective churches on this issue,” he said. “The Catholic Church is aggressively doing outreach against the measure. The Denver Archdiocese has released three sermons on this proposition for pastors to use in educating their congregations about doctor-assisted suicide. The Mormon community and Eastern Orthodox community are also working against it.” (For more from the author of “Voters to Decide Legality of Physician-Assisted Suicide in Colorado” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Student Loan Forgiveness Won’t Solve the $1.3 Trillion Problem

/0 Comments/in , /by

With outstanding student loan debt now exceeding $1.3 trillion, it is no wonder that the sticker price of college tuition has gotten a lot of attention in 2016. Yet few proposals have gotten to the root of the college cost problem.

Despite overwhelming evidence that more federal subsidies for higher education increase tuition prices, policies such as “tuition-free” or “debt-free” public college are attracting attention. But such plans do nothing to address price increases and shift more of the financial burden onto taxpayers.

Unfortunately, discussions of higher education policy have increasingly fixated on proposals that would fail to address college costs, and would instead exacerbate prices by creating the wrong incentives for both universities and students.

Income-based repayment, which caps loan repayments at a percentage of a student’s discretionary income, became more generous under the Obama administration.

When the program was instituted in 2007, repayments were capped at 15 percent of discretionary income. That amount fell to just 10 percent of discretionary income under President Barack Obama, and, as George Leef, of the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, notes, included “zero measures intended to prevent students from binging on foolhardy borrowing.” The Pope Center is a nonprofit that advocates improving higher education.

In addition to more generous income-based repayment terms, loans are now forgiven after 20 years of payments—or just 10 years if a graduate takes a public sector job. The George W. Bush administration had previously set loan forgiveness at 25 years. Some have suggested even shortening those terms further.

Encouraging more students to borrow to attend college with the knowledge that their loans will eventually be forgiven will worsen current higher education costs.

Removing the bulk of a student’s financial responsibility from repaying a loan he or she has agreed to take out will encourage more students to borrow to attend college regardless of whether or not this is a smart financial decision for them.

Meanwhile, colleges and universities will continue to take advantage of ever-increasing federal subsidies and—if history is any guide—continue to raise their tuition prices. Furthermore, American taxpayers, many of whom do not hold bachelor’s degrees themselves, will then be asked to pick up the tab for loan forgiveness.

As more students take out federal loans to finance college, and as federal subsidies continue to crowd out the private loan market, policymakers must begin to address the actual drivers of college costs. In order to reduce college costs, federal subsidies should be limited to make way for a restoration of private lending in the marketplace.

The federal government, as an originator and servicer of student loans, is not and should not be in the position of determining loan terms based on the perceived value of the education students are getting. By contrast, private lenders are in a better position to set loan terms based on student factors such as likelihood to repay, co-signer credit worthiness, school type, and major.

In a paper written by Andrew Kelly and Kevin James, the authors explain that private lenders can take into account “backward-looking” measures, such as a parent’s FICO mortgage score, or “forward-looking” factors such as the likelihood of completing a program and average starting salaries.

They note that “by including factors beyond traditional credit measures, these lenders can identify prospects who may lack a credit history but would likely be able to repay a loan after school.”

Unfortunately, as Leef notes, “the deck is stacked against private lenders growing very much.” He said:

One reason the authors point out is that federal law requires financial aid officers to encourage students to exhaust their government borrowing before they go into the private market. There is an obstacle to sensible higher ed financing that ought to be eliminated.

But even if we could get rid of that rule, the problem remains that federal loans are so easy and attractive (low interest rates and the prospect of partial forgiveness of the debt) that few students will even think about going into the private market.

Loan forgiveness, much like proposals for “free” public college, is misguided policy that ignores the $1.3 trillion problem. More big government solutions are not the answer. A better option is to bring down college costs competitively so that students can finance their education in a reasonable manner.

To do this, policymakers should reform the existing accreditation system so that the market can offer new innovative higher education models, restructure federal aid to better direct it to those who need it, and limit federal subsidies to make way for a restoration of private lending models. (For more from the author of “Student Loan Forgiveness Won’t Solve the $1.3 Trillion Problem” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FIVE GRAPHICS: Why Trump Wins… Big

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Don’t believe the propaganda from the liberal media.

IT’S A REFERENDUM ON CHANGE

161020-wtw-010

THE ENTHUSIAM LANDSLIDE

161020-wtw-020

INDEPENDENTS DISGUSTED, DEMOCRATS DEPRESSED

161020-wtw-030

MILLENIALS AMBIVALENT (OR WORSE) ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON

161020-wtw-040

SPENDING IN KEY SENATE RACES: R OVERWHELMING D

161020-wtw-050

(For more from the author of “FIVE GRAPHICS: Why Trump Wins… Big” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Wikileaks Confirms Damning Veritas Videos. Ted Cruz Demands Criminal Investigation

/0 Comments/in , , /by

New Wikileaks revelations from John Podesta’s emails seem to confirm, at least in part, the veracity of Project Veritas’ findings during an undercover sting investigation that resulted in the firing of two Democratic operatives.

Earlier this week, Project Veritas Action President James O’Keefe released a two-part video series featuring Democratic operatives explaining their efforts to incite violence at Donald Trump rallies and commit voter fraud.

In the organization’s first video, paid activist Zulema Rodriguez describes a particularly notable 1 p.m. phone call with the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Rodriguez claims to be one of the rioters present during the violent confrontations in Chicago in March that led to the cancellation of a Trump rally. As the Project Veritas video reveals, some of the agitators were paid to do so by Democratic operatives, and their operations were coordinated on said phone call.

While working at Democracy Partners, a consulting group, party operative Robert Creamer also makes reference to this phone call in the video, describing how the Clinton campaign discusses “the focuses that need to be undertaken each day” with their activists.

Now what seems like reference to this very same conference call can be found in one of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s leaked emails:

“Reminder — Trump Rapid Response/Bracketing Call — Today – Tues – May17 – 1PM Eastern … Including updates on plans for Trump appearance at NRA Convention Friday…. and New Jersey on Thursday,” an email from Creamer to individuals working for the Clinton campaign reads (emphasis mine).

If indeed this is the same call that Creamer and Rodriguez make reference to in Project Veritas’ video, then it is clear that the DNC has been implicated in illegal activities and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is well due for an investigation.

Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) is wasting no time.

As RedState noted, Creamer — a convicted felon and husband of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. (F, 22%) — has personally visited President Barack Obama at least 45 times.

All the circumstantial evidence is undeniably damning. An individual linked to allegations of voter fraud and voter intimidation meeting with the president of the United States demands strict and immediate scrutiny by law enforcement — perhaps even the appointment of a special prosecutor, to ensure the integrity of the entire process. (For more from the author of “Wikileaks Confirms Damning Veritas Videos. Ted Cruz Demands Criminal Investigation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Duterte Aligns Philippines With China, Says U.S. Has Lost

/0 Comments/in , /by

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte announced his “separation” from the United States on Thursday, declaring he had realigned with China as the two agreed to resolve their South China Sea dispute through talks.

Duterte made his comments in Beijing, where he is visiting with at least 200 business people to pave the way for what he calls a new commercial alliance as relations with longtime ally Washington deteriorate.

“In this venue, your honors, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States,” Duterte told Chinese and Philippine business people, to applause, at a forum in the Great Hall of the People attended by Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli.

“Both in military, not maybe social, but economics also. America has lost.”

Duterte’s efforts to engage China, months after a tribunal in the Hague ruled that Beijing did not have historic rights to the South China Sea in a case brought by the previous administration in Manila, marks a reversal in foreign policy since the 71-year-old former mayor took office on June 30. (Read more from “Duterte Aligns Philippines With China, Says U.S. Has Lost” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Over 80 Rescued, 239 Arrested in Nationwide Sex Trafficking Stings

/0 Comments/in , /by

The FBI and local law enforcement agencies across the country have rescued 82 girls and arrested 239 alleged pimps and traffickers as part a cross-agency effort to crack down on sex traffickers. An international effort rescued 41 children in Canada, Thailand, Cambodia and the Philippines.

It is the 10th annual operation by Operation Cross Country, which began expanding internationally this past year with the launch of a Canadian branch, Northern Spotlight.

“Operation Cross Country aims to shine a spotlight into the darkest corners of our society that seek to prey on the most vulnerable of our population,” said FBI Director James Comey in a press release issued by the FBI. “As part of this effort, we are not only looking to root out those who engage in the trafficking of minors, but through our Office for Victim Assistance, we offer a lifeline to minors to help them escape from a virtual prison no person ever deserves.”

The release outlines the scope of the operation, which the FBI says “has yielded more than 6,000 child identifications and locations,”

Operation Cross Country X is the largest ever in the history of the initiative, with 55 FBI field offices and 74 Child Exploitation Task Forces representing more than 400 law enforcement organizations taking part in the operation. In addition, several dozen operations across Canada, and approximately 10 operations took place in six cities across Cambodia, Thailand, and the Philippines.

A FBI spokesperson told The Stream that because Operation Cross Country is focused on rescuing children from trafficking, the agency did not have a readily available number as to how many adults were rescued during the stings.

State By State

Here is a non-exhaustive list of how many people were rescued and/or arrested in several states and cities:

According to The Spokesman-Review, Operation Cross Country saved 67 women and five girls from sex trafficking in Washington State. Fourteen people were arrested.

In Kansas, 26 people were arrested and five minors were rescued. The Atlanta, Georgia area saw “nearly 70 people” arrested on trafficking-related charges, and 15 were arrested in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area.

Nine children were rescued in Colorado and Wyoming. Nine pimps and 32 “customers” were arrested, according to The Denver Post. Dozens of people were arrested and several minors rescued in Florida, and in Mississippi, almost 30 people were arrested.

The Houston, Texas, area saw three minors rescued and “three traffickers and their associates” arrested, according to Fox4 in Beaumont, Texas. The outlet reported that one teenager “was … reunited with her family.”

Complexity in Helping Rescued Girls and Women

Shared Hope International seeks to end sex trafficking. Senior Director Samantha Vardaman told The Stream that “In the U.S., girls who are recovered from a sex trafficking situation might receive services depending on which state they are in, how they are recovered (e.g., through [law enforcement] arrest vs. child protective services), and whether they cooperate in some cases.”

“Shared Hope is working to correct the inconsistencies and develop more integrated systems of services across the nation through our JuST Response project,” said Vardaman.

Vardaman also addressed a common problem in sex trafficking, where girls and women manipulated or forced into becoming part of a trafficker’s recruitment team. This can end with a trafficked woman being listed as a sex offender or some other type of law violator.

“In the U.S., the largest problem for survivors is the criminal record many of them have after having been trafficked. Nearly all adult women are arrested at some point, and far too many minors still are arrested. In fact, it is still legal in 31 states in the nation to arrest a minor for prostitution,” she explained.

“This is in direct contradiction to the federal law and often in contradiction with their own state laws! Any child used in a commercial sex act is a victim of sex trafficking,” she explained. “Advocates have pressed FBI to institute a meaningful screening mechanism when encountering adult women to determine if they are, in fact, sex trafficking victims or were minors when they first were exploited in prostitution.” (For more from the author of “Over 80 Rescued, 239 Arrested in Nationwide Sex Trafficking Stings” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Rebuking the Unholy Pro-Abortion Coalition

/0 Comments/in , /by

Many years ago, while participating in an Operation Rescue sit-in at an abortion clinic near Washington, D.C., I was struck by the make-up of the pro-abortion protesters. They were largely a mix of atheists, Satanists and gays, and they proudly identified as such. What a coalition!

I remember asking myself, “Why would homosexuals be so adamant about this — adamant enough to show up early in the morning to protest our event — when, for the most part, it’s not relevant to their lives, since they’re not having babies?”

To this day, colleagues of mine who share the gospel outside abortion clinics and offer pro-life alternatives are accosted by this same unholy coalition, often led by aggressive LGBT protesters. Why?

Just this week, after I posted some pro-life tweets in the aftermath of the final presidential debate, the two men who immediately challenged my views were a gay pastor and a Satanist.

Was this just a coincidence? I think not.

I had tweeted, “I urge every Hillary supporter to take time to study late term abortion. She aggressively supports this barbarism. Don’t be partner to it.”

The gay pastor argued that, while not being pro-abortion himself, late-term abortions were only done for the life and health of the mother.

The problem with that, of course, is twofold; First, it does not reduce the barbarity of the procedure; second, “the life and health of the mother” can be twisted to mean almost anything, allowing late-term abortions for things like alleged “mental duress.”

So, this gay pastor’s defense of this horrific procedure was baseless. But it was not surprising, given the moral compromise he already lives in as a practicing homosexual who pastors a “gay-affirming” church.

In similar fashion, Harry Knox, a prominent gay activist, moved from leading the religion branch of the Human Rights Campaign to heading up the Religious Coalition on Reproductive Choice. No surprise!

As for the Satanist, he was more direct in his tweets, using mild profanity in attacking me before affirming a woman’s right to choose. This too was no surprise.

Now, I’m fully aware that many women agonize over their decisions to abort and that some of the decisions are gut wrenching and heartbreaking, perhaps even more so with late-term abortions.

Dr. George Tiller, who was murdered by a demented pro-life activist, actually performed baptisms on some of the aborted babies, dressing them up and joining together with the families in what must surely have been one of the most perverted and macabre religious scenes imaginable. He even gave the babies funerals.

Kill the baby, baptize the baby, bury the baby. How sick!

But this leads me back to the question of why, undoubtedly, the vast majority of Satanists, atheists and gays are pro-abortion.

I’m sure that there are, in fact, pro-life atheists and gays, although they must be a small minority in their communities. And I seriously doubt that there are many (or even any?) pro-life Satanists.

So, the question again is: Why?

The Anti-Life

I believe the answer is primarily twofold: First, these people reject biblical morality; second, these people reject the God of life.

As for the first point, it’s obvious that most of these pro-abortionists would not be moved by a scriptural presentation of the pro-life position. It would either be rejected with scorn, as in, “Who cares what your dumb book says?” Or, in the case of those who profess some kind of biblical faith (like the aforementioned gay pastor), it would be met with a reinterpretation of the clear biblical witness, just as other passages must be reinterpreted in order to justify the sinful practices in their lives.

As for the second point, just ask yourself, on average, who has bigger families, Bible-affirming Christians (and Jews who affirm the Hebrew Scriptures), or atheists, Satanists and gays? Who puts more emphasis on babies and children? Who opposes euthanasia more vigorously?

You see, the battle over abortion is not merely a social and political battle. It is also a spiritual battle, which is why I will flatly and unashamedly rebuke professing Christians — especially fellow-leaders — who are strongly “pro-choice.” In reality, they are anti-life.

By all means, let us address holistically the many problems surrounding abortion — including problems of poverty, education, childcare, adoption, family structure, sexual abuse and more — and let us truly be pro-life, from conception until old age and death.

But let us not join together with the forces of darkness that promote abortion on demand until the last day of pregnancy. To do so is to join forces with a coalition from hell. And you can quote me on that. (For more from the author of “Rebuking the Unholy Pro-Abortion Coalition” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.