Feds Slap Sanctuary Judge, Court Officer With Obstruction of Justice Charges

Federal prosecutors have charged a Massachusetts judge who reportedly turned his own courtroom into a sanctuary jurisdiction with obstruction of justice.

As first reported by the Boston Herald on Thursday, the U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts announced federal obstruction of justice charges against Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph and court officer Wesley MacGregor, who are accused of helping an illegal immigrant evade immigration authorities in 2018.

According to court documents, local law enforcement arrested and charged an already twice-deported illegal alien on narcotics laws last spring. When ICE learned about the arrest, it issued a detainer for the immigrant, who was also previously barred from re-entering the U.S. until 2027.

When a plainclothes officer showed up to execute that warrant on the morning of April 2, 2018, prosecutors say, that’s when Judge Joseph and Officer MacGregor got in the way.

“I’m not gonna allow [ICE] to come in here [the courtroom],” Judge Joseph told a court clerk on the date in question, according to the indictment.

MacGregor is accused of escorting the alien defendant out of the courtroom and using his security access card to open the exit so he could slip away later that afternoon.

“This case is about the rule of law,” said United States attorney Andrew E. Lelling in a Department of Justice press release. “We cannot pick and choose the federal laws we follow, or use our personal views to justify violating the law.”

The indictment also states that the courtroom recorder was turned off, against Massachusetts court rules, for 52 seconds while the judge discussed the matter with the illegal alien’s lawyer.

Federal authorities are charging Joseph and MacGregor with three obstruction-related counts and have also charged MacGregor with one count of perjury for allegedly lying to a grand jury in relation to the matter.

“The people of this country deserve nothing less than to know that their appointed and elected representatives are working on their behalf, while adhering to and enforcing the rule of law, not a personal agenda,” reads a statement from Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent in Charge Peter C. Fitzhugh. “Any conduct which severs the underlying trust that the citizens of this Commonwealth place in those who hold positions of power and authority is a stain on all who swear an oath to protect and serve, with honor and integrity.” (For more from the author of “Feds Slap Sanctuary Judge, Court Officer With Obstruction of Justice Charges” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Terrifying Boy Scout Abuse Scandal Revealed, Hundreds of Victims Come Forward With Allegations

By Mike Ciandella. While the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) faces increasing pressure to release the names of leaders accused of sexual abuse, hundreds of alleged victims have come forward to tell their own stories.

The BSA reportedly has kept the names of 7,819 leaders accused of sexual abuse since 1944 a secret. These leaders were accused by 12,254 alleged victims. The “scope” of how many names are found in these so-called “perversion files” hasn’t been known until now, Jeff Anderson, a lawyer for the victims, told NBC News.

Anderson said he learned about the number of people included in these files from a professor at the University of Virginia named Dr. Janet Warren. Warren had reportedly worked with the Boy Scouts while they evaluated their handling of abuse allegations.

The BSA itself has acknowledged that these files exist, but has refused to make them public. Anderson argued that this endangered young children: “They may have removed them from scouting, but the Boy Scouts of America have never alerted communities that this scout leader, this coach, this teacher is known to be a child molester.”

The Boy Scouts, however, insist that the names of these accused abusers have been turned over to law enforcement. The organization said in a statement, “At no time have we ever knowingly allowed a sexual predator to work with youth, and we mandate that all leaders, volunteers and staff members nationwide immediately report any abuse allegation to law enforcement.”

Just in the past few weeks, more than 200 people have come forward to say that they were victims of abuse at the hands of 150 Scout leaders.

On Tuesday, the law firms of Greg Gianforcaro and Jeff Anderson & Associates released a list the names of 50 scout leaders who were accused of abusing minors in the state of New Jersey.

In 2010, the Boy Scouts were forced to pay $18.5 million in damages and release 20,000 documents. The organization is reportedly considering filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (BSA denies this), which could make it difficult for alleged victims to win compensation. (For more from the author of “Terrifying Boy Scout Abuse Scandal Revealed, Hundreds Come Forward With Allegations” please click HERE)

_________________________________________________

Nearly 8,000 Boy Scout Leaders Allegedly Sexually Abused Minors

By The Week. More than 12,000 Boy Scouts have allegedly been sexually abused by more than 7,000 troop leaders and volunteers in the organization, reports ABC News.

Newly released court documents provide testimony substantiating the claims, writes ABC News. Expert witness Janet Warren, who is a professor at the University of Virginia’s medical school, revealed during a January trial she has been evaluating the Boy Scouts of America’s handling of sexual abuse cases from 1944 to 2016. During this trial, which centered around sexual abuse allegations at a Minnesota children’s theater, Warren said that there were 7,819 perpetrators and 12,254 victims within the organization, reports ABC News.

Attorney Jeff Anderson publicized these numbers on Tuesday and said 130 of the alleged abusers live in New York and could face legal repercussions. (Read more from “Nearly 8,000 Boy Scout Leaders Allegedly Sexually Abused Minors” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Did He Lie? Officer at the Scene of Beto’s DWI Confirms He Tried to Flee the Wreck

By Daily Wire. As The Daily Wire’s Ryan Saavedra reported last August, then-Congressman Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), who was in the midst of a very expensive and tightly contested U.S. Senate race with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) at the time, was publicly revealed to have fled the scene of a dramatic DWI-induced car wreck scene that he had caused 20 years prior:

Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke’s 1998 arrest for drunk driving has been public knowledge for years, but a newly-revealed police report has brought to light even more allegations of disturbing details from the arrest.

The Houston Chronicle reported on Friday that newly-obtained police reports alleged “two elements of the incident that have been overlooked: that there was a crash involved, and that O’Rourke allegedly attempted to flee.”

But while O’Rourke admitted to the DWI, he persistently denied that he tried to flee the scene of the crash. Last September, PolitiFact rated O’Rourke’s denial “Mostly False”:

Records indicate O’Rourke was arrested at the scene and wasn’t charged with trying to flee. But the September 1998 Anthony Police Department report on the incident says a witness said O’Rourke tried to leave the scene before police arrived and the witness kept him from doing so.

(Read more from “Did He Lie? Officer at the Scene of Beto’s DWI Confirms He Tried to Flee the Wreck” HERE)

_____________________________________________________

Officers at Scene of Beto O’Rourke’s 1998 DWI Crash Say They Believe He Tried to Flee

By The Texas Tribune. The former police officer who arrested Beto O’Rourke for driving drunk in 1998, along with the sergeant who signed the incident report, both say they believe now what they reported at the time: that O’Rourke tried to leave the scene of the wreck he caused.

O’Rourke admits he was intoxicated and says there is no justification for his actions, but he has denied that he tried to flee.

“Beto’s DWI is something he has long publicly and openly addressed over the last 20 years at town halls, on the debate stage, during interviews and in Op-Eds, calling it a serious mistake for which there is no excuse,” said O’Rourke spokesman Chris Evans. “This has been widely and repeatedly reported on.”

Neither the investigating officer, Richard Carrera, nor his former supervisor, Gary Hargrove, specifically recalls the events of that night more than 20 years ago. But both of the former Anthony Police Department officers told The Texas Tribune they have no doubt the report they compiled and signed is accurate. . .

Carrera, 49, said after reading the police report, in which an unnamed witness claimed O’Rourke tried to flee in his Volvo, he has “no doubt that he tried to leave the scene.” (Read more from “Officers at Scene of Beto O’Rourke’s 1998 DWI Crash Say They Believe He Tried to Flee” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

U.S. Bill Introduced to Ban Drag Shows From Involving, Sexualizing Children

Lawmakers in Ohio are taking a stand against the sexualization of children by introducing new legislation that would ban drag shows and other sexually-suggestive or explicit performances from using minors.

Introduced by Republican state Rep. Tim Schaffer, House Bill 180 amends Ohio’s child endangerment statute to include involving minors in any material or performance that “suggests a minor is participating or engaging in sexual activity, masturbation, or bestiality.” Adults violating the law could face fines starting at $1,000 and six months in prison.

“Given our heightened focus on human trafficking and the role money plays in trafficking children, I knew I had to take action to make sure this activity does not occur again. We can do better to protect innocent children and we must do better,” Schaffer declared in a statement.

Cleveland.com reported that HB180 is motivated in part by a drag event last December at JD Hendersons, a Lancaster-area bar where 9-year-old drag performer Jacob Measley, a.k.a. “Miss Mae Hem” danced in a suggestive costume while accepting dollar bills from an audience (ostensibly for a charitable event).

On January 30, Lancaster Republican Mayor David Scheffler issued a statement downplaying the incident by stressing that the “minor was fully clothed and was not touched by anyone in the audience,” that his parents were in attendance, that police found “no violations of city ordinances or state laws” and received “no new complaints of this activity” at the bar, and that the bar owners supposedly “did not approve” the activity and promptly banned the drag troupe upon learning about it. (Read more from “U.S. Bill Introduced to Ban Drag Shows From Involving, Sexualizing Children” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The U.S. Navy Is Making It Easier for Its Pilots to Report UFOs

By The Blaze. The U.S. Navy is coming up with new guidelines that will make it easier for pilots and Navy personnel to report sightings of unidentified flying objects. . .

While these new guidelines that encourage reporting of unidentified objects may excite believers in extraterrestrials, they have nothing to do with alien spacecraft sightings. Rather, the Navy is concerned about aircraft it doesn’t know about entering U.S. military airspace.

In a statement to Politico, a spokesperson for the Navy explained, “There have been a number of reports of unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft entering various military-controlled ranges and designated air space in recent years.”

This is especially problematic now that drones have become popular. In December, a drone entered the airspace of London’s Gatwick airport, causing panic and delays.

Being able to analyze these sightings could help to better detect the presence of hostile aircraft and other “hazards to aviation safety.” These UFO sightings happen often enough, Politico reported, that Navy leadership believes they can no longer be ignored. The Navy told Politico in a statement that it “takes these reports very seriously and investigates each and every report.” (Read more from “The U.S. Navy Is Making It Easier for Its Pilots to Report UFOs” HERE)

_________________________________________________

Frustrated Pilots Got Navy to Stop Dismissing UFOs

By Daily News Philly. A recent uptick in sightings of unidentified flying objects — or, as the military calls them, “unexplained aerial phenomena” — prompted the U.S. Navy to draft formal procedures for pilots to document encounters, a corrective measure that former officials say is long overdue.

“Since 2014, these intrusions have been happening on a regular basis,” Joseph Gradisher, spokesman for the deputy chief of naval operations for information warfare, told the Washington Post on Wednesday. Recently, unidentified aircraft entered military-designated airspace as often as multiple times per month. “We want to get to the bottom of this. We need to determine who’s doing it, where it’s coming from, and what their intent is. We need to try to find ways to prevent it from happening again.” . . .

Luis Elizondo, a former senior intelligence officer, told the Post that the new Navy guidelines formalized the reporting process, facilitating data-driven analysis while removing the stigma from talking about UFOs, calling it “the single greatest decision the Navy has made in decades.” (Read more from “Frustrated Pilots Got Navy to Stop Dismissing UFOs” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Texas Border Experts Call Foul on Rules of Engagement for Troops at Border

Mexican soldiers detaining and disarming our active-duty soldiers on our own soil is a bigger story than what either the government or media is making of it. We spend roughly $716 billion on the military every year and spent trillions in the Middle East, but our own territory remains unsafe not only for our ranchers, but evidently for our own active-duty military.

Here’s what we know so far from NORTHCOM and from the serious incident report obtained by Newsweek. On April 13, in broad daylight, five or six Mexican soldiers crossed over the Rio Grande River, which is our definitive international border, forced two U.S. Army soldiers out of an unmarked Customs and Border Protection (CBP) truck, disarmed one of them, asserted that the U.S. soldiers were on Mexico’s territory, and left. Our government is very clear that our soldiers were on our side of the river, but they suggest that Mexican soldiers might have been confused about the border line. The State Department, CBP, and the Department of Defense (DOD) have all declined to comment on whether our government has solicited a response or an apology from the government in Mexico City.

While government officials will not provide more details, what we know raises some disturbing questions about both the intentions of these Mexican soldiers and the readiness, strategy, mindset, and rules of engagement of our military at the border. This incident further raises some uncomfortable questions about our government’s understanding of the border and willingness to confront the severity of the problem of the cartels and the rogue Mexican army units covering for them, according to two Texas border experts who spoke to CR.

Jaeson Jones, a retired captain of the Texas Department of Public Safety’s Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division, told CR that he is deeply concerned about this incident. “While those of us who have been stationed in west Texas and worked the border for decades understand the regular reality of Mexican military incursions and ops testing our positions, this latest incident is in fact more alarming,” he said.

Jones emphatically believes that these were rogue Mexican soldiers engaged in operations on behalf of the cartels to test the strength and tactics of our recently deployed military.

“I can assure you that cartel leadership working the area were debriefed as to the type of weapons and communications our soldiers were carrying: [Whether] the vehicle was armored and the level of resistance the Mexican military received from our soldiers. The response time would have also been measured as to how long it took for backup to arrive post-incident. Cartel operations on U.S. soil are very calculated. They involve tradecraft and the utilization of encrypted communications to monitor all U.S law enforcement in the area.”

What did the Mexican military and cartels learn from this incident? Jones told me that from years of debriefing top cartel members, he is confident they are “testing our defensive capabilities at the border and protecting shipments of contraband for the cartels.”

“We have seen again and again where corrupt Mexican military units working for the Mexican cartels provide counter surveillance, intelligence, tradecraft, and technical equipment to protect narcotics being smuggled into the United States.”

Jones was very critical of the lack of preparation of our military and said the cartels have now learned that even when we send down active-duty troops, “our U.S. soldiers on the border are a paper tiger.”

“Most concerning is that our soldiers are not given the weapons needed to protect themselves, nor are they granted the authority to conduct detentions while assigned to the border. I have said this for years as someone who has assigned my intelligence officers to train our incredible soldiers with the National Guard and Counterdrug National Guard forces on the cartels’ capabilities prior to deployment. If we as Americans are going to send these great soldiers into harm’s way, we need to give all of them the equipment to protect themselves and the authority to do the job.”

Col. Dan Steiner, a retired Air Force veteran who served as the director of joint operations for Texas military forces until 2010, is equally concerned about this development. As a man who directed coordination between the Texas Military Forces and NORTHCOM for many years, which included joint coordination with Mexican military units, Steiner is not buying the narrative that these were non-corrupted Mexican soldiers who just happened to get lost in the brush and mistakenly thought our soldiers were on their soil.

First of all, this was 2:00 p.m., not midnight in a rainstorm. How do Mexican soldiers dismount their vehicle, cross the river, encounter a vehicle, and then get called back to their vehicle, and the whole thing was just “confusion”?

He noted that given the size of the unit and location of the soldiers, “They were probably infantry, if not special ops, in a small-team unit movement, which means it’s bullcrap that they didn’t know they crossed the river.”

Steiner observes that the fact that none of the soldiers had markings or patches indicating they were part of the military is a “dead giveaway” that this was likely a “sanitized mission” as part of a special operation to cover for the cartels.

“Why did five to six Mexican soldiers not have all their proper identification on their uniforms? In our world, that’s called a sanitized mission. So, if we are to assume that SEDENA [the Mexican army] was running a sanitized operation on the border, then we must assume that the kind of soldiers that will do that mission are trained to the point that they sure as hell would have known if they crossed that river or not. So, there’s something else to the story. And it sure the hell is not accidental encounter.”

Steiner also ruled out the idea that this could have been some routine patrol scouting out drug routes against the cartels and that they just crossed wires with our military. “If they were on routine patrol, think about how you put an operational mission together. If you design an op and your operation is designed upon eight four-man teams who are going to check the border in this sector to do this, this, and this, well … SEDENA has a deconfliction team at NORTHCOM to sort that out. Why wouldn’t NORTHCOM know that from, say, the 21st to the fifth of the month, we’re going to do this operation in this area, and NORTHCOM says, ‘Cool, we’ll do an operation in that same area as you guys are doing it to help you out.’”

“If NORTHCOM is sitting there saying it was just a misunderstanding and confusion, then tell me the rest of the story – were you guys doing a joint operation and the ground soldiers got it screwed up, or did you not know about it and now you’re just making up some lame-ass story about bushes and barely any water and these guys walk across the river at two o’clock in the afternoon?”

“Come on, if you’re gonna do a cover story, you gotta do better than that,” said the skeptical Steiner.

Regardless of the intent and strategy of the Mexican soldiers, Steiner was also befuddled by the strategy of our military to set up a mobile observational listening post in such a vulnerable position. “Why were our soldiers in an unmarked vehicle when they were trying to be a physical deterrent with their physical presence? I never wrote a mission that way. Why were they only armed with a handgun for their rules of engagement with the probability of running into drug cartels who are armed to the teeth? … I don’t understand that. That was a stupid politically driven decision, probably at the operational level.”

When Steiner coordinated a Texas National Guard operation in 2008, he made it clear that “our starting point was that any soldier who goes to the border goes with a long gun and a handgun.”

“I can guarantee you we never had guys on the border in an unmarked vehicle with nothing but a handgun. That part of that story hit me square in the face. That tells you how reluctant everyone is to really press the issue.”

The tepid response is most concerning to Steiner from the standpoint of international deterrent to Russia, China, and other enemies who will seek to further entrench themselves in our backyard to destabilize our sovereignty. “The most dangerous thing is that our enemies understand and look for our vulnerabilities. And if I want you out [of] the Pacific, if I want you to stop worrying about the future of NATO, or anything else, I’m going to create a fire in your backyard.”

The ultimate question is this: Why hasn’t our military taken control of our border and established a buffer zone, where the central Mexican government clearly lacks control anyway, so that not a single inch of American soil is unsafe or vulnerable to external security threats? This is a question Rep. Chip Roy, who represents part of south central Texas, asked on Twitter in response to this Mexican incursion into our territory.

We spend $46 billion a year on Afghanistan at the drop of a hat, but won’t do what needs to be done at our own border against those who directly threaten us. Sadly, things will likely have to get worse until it becomes politically viable to treat our own border with the same seriousness with which we regard the security of the perimeter around Kabul. (For more from the author of “Texas Border Experts Call Foul on Rules of Engagement for Troops at Border” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Hillary Says Trump ‘Certainly’ Should Have Been Indicted…Here’s How POTUS Responded

By Townhall. President Trump tweeted out a response to Clinton via a Rush Limbaugh soundbite. In the Fox News clip he shared, Limbaugh says Clinton is “the last person” who should be mandating what happens to Trump, considering she has been repeatedly “rejected” by the American people.

At the TIME 100 summit in New York Tuesday afternoon, Hillary Clinton said Donald Trump is lucky he’s president. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report on the Russia investigation concluded that Trump at no point colluded to win the 2016 election, but it did leave open some questions about his behavior and whether it amounted to obstruction of justice.

Clinton intoned that anyone else would not have gotten off so scot-free. . .

Trump Jr. shared some of her unfortunate laundry list, before dubbing her the worst presidential candidate “in history.”

(Read more from “Hillary Says Trump ‘Certainly’ Should Have Been Indicted…Here’s How POTUS Responded” HERE)

_________________________________________________

Hillary Clinton: Anyone Other Than Trump Would Have Been Indicted for Obstruction

By Fox News. Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she believes Donald Trump would have been indicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe if he weren’t president, though stopped short of calling for his impeachment.

Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president in 2016, argued during a Q&A session in New York that Mueller’s report “could not be clearer” in making the case Trump tried to obstruct the Russia investigation — even though Mueller did not come to an explicit conclusion on that question.

“I think there’s enough there that any other person who had engaged in those acts would certainly have been indicted,” Clinton said at the “Time 100 Summit.” “But because of the rule in the Justice Department that you can’t indict a sitting president, the whole matter of obstruction was very directly sent to the Congress.”

Clinton, who was defeated by Trump in the election, said it’s too early to call for Trump’s impeachment. She said she supports Congress investigating Mueller’s findings “based on evidence” and without a “preordained conclusion.”

After a thorough examination in Congress, Clinton said, “If at that point they believe high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed, then I think it is the obligation of the Congress to put forward articles of impeachment.” (Read more from “Hillary Clinton: Anyone Other Than Trump Would Have Been Indicted for Obstruction” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

U.S. Pilot Who Was Shot Down During Somali Raid Responds to Omar’s ‘Disgusting’ Black Hawk Down Tweet

At times, my boss tells me that Twitter can be just a prolonged resignation letter. Bad tweets, unsavory tweets, etc. have been weaponized. From politicians to top NFL draft prospects, like Oklahoma’s Kyler Murray, have been victims. Some of them are pretty bad, no doubt. But most are just hijinks and stupidity that’s often captured and exhibited by teenagers. Now, Twitter could be one’s epitaph in public life, though Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) enjoys the fact that her district is deep blue…and totally insane for electing her. Her anti-Semitic hijinks have been exposed and it’s not just one isolated incident. It dates back to 2012, where she said Israel has hypnotic powers. She accused supporters of Israel of having dual loyalties—a common anti-Semitic trope, and criticized AIPAC with her “all about the Benjamins” tweet. Oh, you know, money, Jewish people, and influence—nothing bigoted about that remark or insinuation. She apologized for the latter, not the former. It has caused much heartburn on her side of the aisle. We saw that when they tried to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism, which was then watered down to a ‘bad things are bad’ resolution, exposing that Speaker Nancy Pelosi really can’t corral the nutjobs in her party. As for radical Islamic terrorism, she can’t condemn it.

In March, at a CAIR event, which has been accused of having terror ties, Omar described the 9/11 attacks as an event where “some people did something.” In 2017, she appears to be siding with those who ambushed and killed 18 Americans in Somalia during our intervention in the country’s brutal civil war in the early 1990s.

Well, her resurfaced tweet is not going over well with the veterans who served and fought in Somalia. Chief Warrant Officer Michael Durant (retired), who was one of the pilots of the black hawk helicopter “Super 6-4,” was shot down during the raid and held captive by Aidid’s forces before being released. Actor Ron Eldard portrayed him in the 2002 film. He quickly set the record straight. John Rossomando of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, who unearthed the tweets, has more:

Only 133 Somali militiamen died in the fighting with U.S. Rangers and Delta Force soldiers, Capt. Haad, a representative of the Somali National Alliance (SNA) said in a 2001 interview with Author Mark Bowden. He estimated 500 Somali deaths in his book Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War, considered the definitive account of the Battle of Mogadishu. Others put the Somali death toll closer to 1,000. A 2000 Rand Corporation report estimated 300 noncombatants were killed. . .

Durant’s Black Hawk helicopter, code-named “Super 6-4,” was shot down after a rocket-propelled grenade hit its tail rotor. Durant was injured and ran out of ammunition fighting back as a human wave of militia approached. Delta Force snipers Randy Shughart and Gary Gordon were killed when they joined him trying to keep the Somali militia at bay. Each was posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. The Somali mob dragged their bodies through the streets of Mogadishu. Durant ultimately was captured and held by Aidid’s militia for 11 days before being released in a prisoner exchange.

(Read more from “U.S. Pilot Who Was Shot Down During Somali Raid Responds to Omar’s ‘Disgusting’ Black Hawk Down Tweet” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Here Are Some of the Worst Global Warming Predictions Pushed by…the Experts

This green warrior nonsense makes me want to buy all the aerosolized products at my local Walmart and just spray it intentionally into the air. Call me nuts, but I still think the jury is out. In 2007, the experts said the Arctic ice cap would be gone by 2013. It ended up growing by 533,000 square miles. In 2013, we had the calmest hurricane season in thirty years and the quietest tornado season in six decades. It seems like, I d don’t know, that there’s a natural cycle to this. It gets hot in the summer. Hurricanes form during…hurricane season; the same with tornados, and the seasons’ intensity varies. It’s not because of global warming. Oh, and the EPA buries this, but we’re at our most industrialized state ever; air quality couldn’t be better.

Ever since this blasted Earth Day was created in 1970, the green warriors have predicted catastrophe. And they were all totally and utterly wrong. Here are some of their biggest whoppers, courtesy of the American Enterprise Institute who doled out 18 of their biggest flops since 1970. You can about the rest in the link. The Day After Tomorrow is more…two days before the day after tomorrow (via AEI) [emphasis mine]:

Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” . . .

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

“Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

(Read more from “Here Are Some of the Worst Global Warming Predictions Pushed by…the Experts” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Brothers Who Helped With Smollett Hoax Are Now Suing His Lawyers

The two Nigerian-American brothers who helped “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett carry out his alleged “hate hoax” attack have sued Smollett’s Hollywood-based attorneys in federal court alleging defamation.

CWB Chicago reports that “[t]he complaint filed this morning in Chicago’s federal courthouse seeks more than $75,000 each for Olabinjo ‘Ola’ Osundairo and Abimbola ‘Bola’ Osundairo from attorneys Mark Geragos and Tina Glandian as well as the Geragos & Geragos Law Firm.”

The lawsuit not only accuses Smollett’s attorneys of making defamatory claims that they believe went above and beyond merely advocating for their client in the public square, but outlines, in a signed and sworn document, how they helped Smollett carry out the alleged “hate hoax,” which, they say, was entirely orchestrated by Smollett himself.

The two brothers allege that Smollett paid them “a sum of money to stage the attack to benefit himself” and then “directed every aspect of the attack, including the location and the noose.”

The pair of brothers, who work as amateur personal trainers and nutritionists in Chicago, and took bit parts in local television shows, including “Empire,” where they first connected with Smollett, contend they were cowed into the deal: “Mr. Smollett used his clout as a wealthy actor to influence Plaintiffs, who were in a subordinate relationship to him and were aspiring to ‘make it’ in Hollywood.” (Read more from “Brothers Who Helped With Smollett Hoax Are Now Suing His Lawyers” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE