House Bucks Trump’s Transgender Troop Policy in Defense Spending Vote

A 242-187 majority of the House of Representatives voted Thurdsay to override the Trump adminsitration’s policy on transgender troops serving in the U.S. military.

The vote itself was on an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act — Congress’ big, annual military authorization bill.

A report on the bill and its amendments from the House Armed Services Committee explains that the amendment “requires that qualifications for eligibility to serve in an armed force account only for the ability of an individual to meet gender-neutral occupational standards and not include any criteria relating to the race, color, national origin, religion, or sex (including gender identity or sexual orientation) of an individual.”

The measure initially passed by a voice vote the day before, but Democrats requested a roll call, wanting to go on record against the president’s transgender policy.

“Over the last three years, 14,000 transgender service members have served openly and successfully,” amendment sponsor Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., said on the House floor Wednesday. “We know what transgender service members bring to the fight; let them bring it.”

Ten Republicans joined with Democrats in support of the amendment.

President Trump announced an end to transgender military service two years ago in June 2017, tweeting, “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”

After studying the issue, the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security determined that “the accession or retention of individuals with a history of diagnosis of gender dysphoria – those who may require substantial medical treatment, including through medical drugs or surgery – presents considerable risk to military effectiveness and lethality.”

The Supreme Court ruled in January that the policy could go into effect as lawsuits work their way through lower courts on the issue. The policy went into effect earlier this year, though some state National Guards are openly defying the new policy.

The Senate passed its version of the NDAA last month with no such transgender language. The differences between the bills will have to be resolved before it can go to the president’s desk. (For more from the author of “House Bucks Trump’s Transgender Troop Policy in Defense Spending Vote” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Here’s How Far from Current Law Our Border Debate Has Shifted

In 2006, a super-majority of Congress passed the Secure Fence Act. It required that no less than 850 miles of double-layer fencing be constructed on our border. But it also codified a sense of purpose and a clearly defined mission for Border Patrol, to which everyone at the time agreed. It required the secretary of homeland security to “take all actions” necessary within 18 months of passage to “achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States” (emphasis added). What has ever come of this requirement?

Section 2(b) of the bill defined “operational control” as “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.”

What is going on today, a long time after the law’s passage, is the opposite of operational control. The cartels have complete operational control over critical population areas around the Rio Grande River, and illegal immigration, more than ever before, is strategically being used by the cartels for smuggling in narcotics, contraband, and dangerous aliens.

The Secure Fence Act passed the Senate 80-19 on September 14, 2006, with support from Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Dianne Feinstein, among other Democrat luminaries. Even while they were pushing for amnesty that very year for those here illegally who had resided in the country for a long time, everyone universally understood that the border had to be secured from new illegal immigration and cartel activities.

How is it that 13 years later, our border is worse than ever, and these very same politicians now believe our Border Patrol exists for the purpose of processing, caring for, and managing a border invasion rather than repelling it? And how is it that even Republicans are incapable of properly messaging the provisions of current law and the authority of any sovereign nation to deny entry and turn back illegal aliens, especially when they are used as weapons by dangerous cartels?

But this radical shift in mindset is not even 13 years old. When the first wave of Central American children began coming to Texas’ Rio Grande Valley in 2014, Obama shut it down within a few months, even though the magnitude of the problem was a fraction of the crisis today.

Here are the key numbers from the crisis in the spring to summer of 2014: The number of apprehensions spiked to over 57,000 in March and then peaked at 68,804 and 66,541 in May and June respectively. There was a big legislative fight and a lot of coverage over the unaccompanied teens being smuggled in over the summer, and by August, the numbers were below 40,000, where they remained more or less until the final months of Obama’s presidency.

Obama’s border supplemental request at the time called for more funding to “repatriate and reintegrate migrants to Central America” and for a media campaign in Central America to “deliver the message that unaccompanied children are not given a permit to stay in the U.S.” They didn’t just talk about more funding for humanitarian amnesty programs.

In a famous interview with George Stephanopoulos on June 26, Obama said very emphatically, “Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it, they’ll get sent back. More importantly, they may not make it.”

Rather than virtue-signal over the deaths of migrants and blame them on Border Patrol and ICE, Obama very clearly recognized that their deaths, while tragic, of course, were the result of their own trip and that the way to prevent such tragedy is by not coming in the first place. “Our message absolutely is don’t send your children unaccompanied, on trains or through a bunch of smugglers,” said Obama. “We don’t even know how many of these kids don’t make it, and may have been waylaid into sex trafficking or killed because they fell off a train.”

Fast-forward five years, and we have 10 straight months of 50,000 or more apprehensions and four months of over 100,000, dwarfing the 2014 wave. But it’s worse than just the macro numbers. At the peak of the 2014 wave, the number of family unit apprehensions, which really places a greater strain on Border Patrol, exceeded 12,000 for just two months before being shut down. We have now been at over double that level for 10 consecutive months and, in recent months, over five times that level.

And yet, even Republicans refuse to discuss funding for repatriation. It’s all about the migrants and not concern for Americans, when even Obama had the moral clarity to understand that Americans come first and that to care for migrants, the best recourse is to dissuade them from making the trip. Republicans have no plans to fight for more detention space and deportation funding. They recently passed a bill fueling more catch-and-release, which will pull more agents off the line without a commensurate amount of enforcement funding. They also funded more legal aid for them to litigate their way into the country. And that was considered the conservative bill!

There seems to be a lawyer for every illegal alien desiring to nullify our immigration laws. Why is there nobody in government willing to finally enforce the mandate to “achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States” and prevent “all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband”?

We were owed that outcome, the outcome any first world nation should expect, 13 years ago. It’s never too late to fulfil the promise. (For more from the author of “Here’s How Far from Current Law Our Border Debate Has Shifted” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump to Announce Executive Action on Census Citizenship Question

President Trump will announce an executive action to add the citizenship question to the 2020 census, two senior administration officials have confirmed to CBS News. He tweeted that he’ll be making a statement on the topic Thursday afternoon.

The anticipated 5 p.m. announcement comes as the president exhibits frustration over the Supreme Court decision blocking the Trump administration from adding the question, ruling that his administration had failed to provide adequate justification for the question. Multiple legal battles over the question are still playing out in lower courts.

It isn’t yet clear exactly what kind of executive action the president will take. Mr. Trump initially described his announcement as a news conference, but the updated White House schedule only described the event as remarks — meaning reporters might not have an opportunity to ask questions. Attorney General William Barr is expected to be at the president’s announcement. . .

The House has set a date of July 16 to vote to hold Barr and Commerce Department Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt of Congress for refusing to respond to questions about the census.

“These documents could shed light on the real reason that the Trump Administration tried to add the citizenship question,” House Oversight and Reform Chairman Elijah Cummings said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the administration is stonewalling our investigation and obstructing our efforts to get the information we need to do our jobs. We should not be forced to take these extreme actions to get the documents and information we need to conduct a thorough investigation. I urge Attorney General Barr and Secretary Ross to change course and produce the documents we have subpoenaed on a bipartisan basis so the House is not forced to hold them in contempt of Congress.” (Read more from “Trump to Announce Executive Action on Census Citizenship Question” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

According to Ocasio-Cortez, the Feud Between Her and Pelosi Is Because of Racism

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) attacked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during multiple recent interviews, going as far as to say that she believes that Pelosi is targeting her because Pelosi is racist. . .

“The last time I kind of spoke to her one on one was when she asked me to join the Select Committee on Climate Change,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “I was assigned to some of the busiest committees and four subcommittees. So my hands are full. And sometimes I wonder if they’re trying to keep me busy.”

Ocasio-Cortez suggested to The Washington Post on Wednesday that Pelosi was a racist: “When these comments first started, I kind of thought that she was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm’s distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood. But the persistent singling out . . . it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful . . . the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.”

Pelosi has repeatedly mocked Ocasio-Cortez and the other three far-left freshmen House Democrats, recently telling The New York Times: “All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world. But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”

Pelosi echoed a similar statement in April, saying: “While there are people who have a large number of Twitter followers, what’s important is that we have large numbers of votes on the floor of the House.” (Read more from “According to Ocasio-Cortez, the Feud Between Her and Pelosi Is Because of Racism” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

New Poll Shows President Trump Beating Top 2020 Dems

President Donald Trump is poised to beat a handful of top-tier Democratic presidential candidates in the 2020 election, while losing to others, according to a new poll of head-to-head matchups.

The latest poll from Emerson College is yet another reflecting positively for Trump, who has a number of advantages and disadvantages going into the 2020 election as nearly two dozen Democrats are all vying to unseat him from the White House.

Trump edges out several candidates 51-49, including rising Democratic stars such as Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

The race gets tougher for Trump when facing former Vice President Joe Biden, who according to the poll would beat the incumbent Republican 53-47. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont also wins a head-to-head matchup 51% to Trump’s 49%.

The poll also gave Trump a decisive edge over his Republican primary challenger in former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, leading the former Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee 91-9. (Read more from “New Poll Shows President Trump Beating Top 2020 Dems” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

VANITY FAIR: Trump Knew Epstein Had Recorded Incriminating Sex Pics With Clinton; Records Reveal Bill’s Statement About Controversy Is a COMPLETE LIE

(Editor’s note: For years, Restoring Liberty has been publishing stories regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s corrupt Florida plea deal, his connections to numerous global leaders, and his apparent library of images of politicians committing heinous acts. For more information, please visit this link. Restoring Liberty congratulates Donald Trump’s Department of Justice for finally attempting to bring accountability to these sickos)

By MICHAEL VAN DER GALIEN. Back in 2015, onstage at the annual CPAC conference, Trump said something very interesting about Bill Clinton. “Nice guy,” he said. “Got a lot of problems coming up, in my opinion, with the famous island with Jeffrey Epstein. Lot of problems.”

Trump knew what he was talking about. Vanity Fair reports that, shortly before CPAC, Trump was approached by David Pecker, who then owned the National Enquirer. Pecker visited Trump and brought along “an issue with a Prince Andrew and Epstein-related cover.” They were joined by Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.

After the meeting, Trump called in Sam Nunberg, who then worked for him. Nunberg told Vanity Fair:

“Michael was sitting in there when I came in, and the issue of the National Enquirer with the pictures of Prince Andrew was on his desk. He said not to tell anyone, but that Pecker had just been there and had brought the issue with him. Trump said that Pecker had told him that the pictures of Clinton that Epstein had from his island were worse.”

What makes Vanity Fair’s report double fascinating is that the leftist magazine clearly implies that Epstein doesn’t have any dirt on Trump himself. (Read more about Epstein recording incriminating sex pics HERE)

_________________________________________________

Records Show Clinton Dined with Epstein in 1995, Predating Public Timeline

By Fox News. Former President Bill Clinton dined with financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 1995, records show—years before the interactions detailed in a statement from his office earlier this week.

That statement condemned the wealthy hedge fund manager after his indictment for alleged sex trafficking crimes was unsealed Monday. The statement said Clinton “knows nothing” about Epstein’s alleged crimes and included a timeline of Clinton’s interactions with him starting in 2002.

But according to a story published back in March 1995 by the Palm Beach Post, then-President Clinton attended a “three-hour dinner” at the time with a “very select group of people” at the Palm Beach home of business magnate Ron Perelman. The diverse group included Epstein — as well as singer Jimmy Buffet, actor Don Johnson, then-co-chairman of the Democratic National Committee Don Fowler and others.

“Joining Clinton for a three-hour dinner was a very select group of people, some of whom, according to one Democratic Party source, gave as much as $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee for the privilege of dining with the president,” the report said.

The nearly 25-year-old report, reviewed by Fox News, indicates that Clinton and Epstein interacted years before the instances detailed in the former president’s statement this week. (Read more from “Records Show Clinton Dined with Epstein in 1995, Predating Public Timeline” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Judge Won’t Designate Retired Gen. Michael Flynn Co-Conspirator in Foreign Lobbying Scheme

A judge has rejected federal prosecutors’ last-minute attempts to name former national security adviser and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn a co-conspirator in a Turkish lobbying scheme.

Judge Anthony Trenga on Tuesday decided against the prosecution’s attempt to designate Flynn a co-conspirator in the case against his former business partner, citing lack of evidence, according to court documents obtained by the Daily Caller.

“The United States at this point has not presented or proffered evidence sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence a conspiracy for the purposes of admitting against the Defendant the hearsay statements of alleged co-conspirators pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E),” Trenga wrote, noting a federal rule that prohibits new evidence from being introduced during an ongoing criminal trial. . .

Prosecutors wanted Flynn classified as a co-conspirator in order to submit hearsay evidence. They decided suddenly last week that Flynn would not be testifying as a part of their trial plan in the case against his former business partner, Bijan Kian, according to a court filing on July 3.

Flynn’s legal team criticized the prosecution’s move and attempt to re-characterize Flynn after months of insisting he was their key cooperating witness. Prosecutors even specifically said in June that they did not consider Flynn a co-conspirator. (Read more from “Judge Won’t Designate Retired Gen. Michael Flynn Co-Conspirator in Foreign Lobbying Scheme” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Border Apprehensions Drop to Lowest Level in Months

Apprehensions by Border Patrol agents of migrants who illegally cross the U.S. border with Mexico dropped nearly 29 percent in June, reaching the lowest level since March. The decrease follows seasonal patterns and increased immigration enforcement in Mexico following President Donald Trump’s threat of tariffs.

“Since the administration reached a new agreement with Mexico,” Acting Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kevin K. McAleenan said in a written statement, “we’ve seen a substantial increase in the number of interdictions on the Mexican southern border.

The apprehension of migrants illegally crossing the U.S. border from Mexico dropped from 132,880 in May to 94,897 in June. This represents a decrease of 28.6 percent, according to the Southwest Border Migration Report released on Wednesday afternoon by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The biggest drop in apprehensions came in the categories of family units and unaccompanied minors. The apprehension of these two categories fell from 95,890 in May to 64,767 in June — a 32.5 percent drop. Single adults also dropped from 36,900 to 30,130 — an 18.3 percent drop. . .

“This year’s decline in apprehensions from May to June outpaces last year’s decline by 11 percent,” the acting DHS secretary explained. “The reduction in apprehensions accounts for decreases across all demographics, including unaccompanied minors, family units and single adults, as well as decreases in migrants from all Northern Triangle countries, particularly those coming from Guatemala.” (Read more from “Border Apprehensions Drop to Lowest Level in Months” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Here’s How Vets Feel About President Trump’s Handling of the Military

A majority of veterans approve of the way President Trump is handling his duties as commander in chief of the military, according to a new Pew Research Center poll published Wednesday.

The poll found that a majority – 57% – of veterans approve of Trump’s handling of the military, with about half at 48% saying his policies have made the military stronger. Forty-one percent of veterans said they disapproved and only 23% said they have made the military weaker. . .

A majority of veterans — 64% — also said Trump respects veterans a “great deal” or a “fair amount,” versus the 38% who said Trump does not respect veterans much or at all. Older veterans were more likely than younger veterans to say Trump respects veterans a “great deal” — at 54% and 40%.

A majority of veterans — 58% — approve of Trump sending troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to deal with migrants coming to the U.S. Fifty-three percent approved of his withdrawing the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, and 52% approved of his transgender policy. . .

An overwhelming 92% of veterans who are Republicans or lean Republican said they approved of how Trump is handling the military, as well as 6% of veterans who are Democrats or lean Democrat. Ninety-three percent of veterans who are Democrats or lean Democrat disapprove. (Read more from “Here’s How Vets Feel About President Trump’s Handling of the Military” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Obama DOJ Officials Knew Their Spy Warrant for Trump Official Would Be Controversial and Second-Guessed

Well, Christopher Steele, Department of Justice investigators interviewed the ex-MI6 spy who compiled the infamous Trump dossier. That document, a Clinton-funded piece of political opposition research, was one of the key pieces of so-called evidence that was used to fan the flames of the Russian collusion myth. The dossier’s credibility was immediately questioned, as a large portion of the information in it couldn’t be verified. In fact, most of it remains unverified. It doesn’t matter. The report filed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller debunked all of it. Trump and his campaign team didn’t collude with the Russians. There was no conspiracy. . .

Steele had previously refused to cooperate, but only recently agreed to be interviewed by investigators with the DOJ inspector general’s office who are investigating the alleged FISA abuses during the 2016 campaign. This certainly put a delay on whatever deadline this office put on the report, which has some Democrats and former Obama intelligence chiefs a bit nervous and for good reason (via NYT):

. . .During a congressional deposition last fall, Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio and a Trump ally, asked Mr. Baker why he took the unusual step of personally reviewing the original warrant application.

“I anticipated being — sitting here in rooms like this down the road, I seriously did, and I knew that it was — I knew that it was sensitive,” Mr. Baker replied, according to a transcript. “I knew that it would be controversial.”

(Read more from “Obama DOJ Officials Knew Their Spy Warrant for Trump Official Would Be Controversial and Second-Guessed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE